Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (FISHGUARD HARBOUR, ETC., VESTING) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday 9th March.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Glasgow Corporation, presented by Mr. Secretary Ross (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 195.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. E. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether when considering proposals for local government reorganisation in Wales, he will take into account the proposal made to the Royal Commission on Local Government that reforms should be based on the city region.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I have to consider all suggestions for changes in the structure of local government in Wales. It would not be proper, however, for me to comment on any particular idea in advance of presentation of my proposals to the House.

Mr. Rowlands: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that any reform of

local government in Wales must bring to an end the arbitrary and outdated distinction between counties and county boroughs?

Mr. Hughes: All these matters are being carefully considered at the present time and it would be wrong for me to anticipate the White Paper which I propose to place before the House in due course.

Economic Development

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when the Welsh economic development plan will be published.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): Work on the White Paper on Wales is being pressed ahead as rapidly as possible and my right hon. Friend hopes to publish it before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that the employment position in Wales, despite the fact that we have lost something like three quarters of a million people since 1921, is still worse than in any region on this island and there is a painful need for economic development and economic development planning? Is she not deeply ashamed that the Government, having promised us this report, have not succeeded in producing one and will not produce one until the latter part of this year?

Mrs. White: While we are all concerned about the employment position in Wales, the fact that this study has not yet been published is not in any way holding up action. As for the study itself, it is essential that it should be thorough rather than one produced rapidly.

Mr. Probert: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would serve the interests of Wales far better not to produce the plan too hastily?

Mrs. White: We do not want to be dilatory about this, but it is important that adequate study should be made over a varied range of subjects.

Passenger Transport Services (Mid-Wales)

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to


co-ordinate transport service throughout the whole of mid-Wales as far as passenger services are concerned, so as to serve the needs of passengers arising out of the recent and proposed changes in British Railways services between Shrewsbury and Paddington.

Mrs. White: I understand that British Railways and the bus company concerned have made arrangements to co-ordinate their Mid-Wales services. If any particular problems arise, the newly appointed Passenger Transport Co-ordinating Committee for Wales will be able to consider them.

Mr. Hooson: Will the Minister of State bear in mind that there is no proposed connection for the early train from Shrewsbury to Paddington, nor for the late train from Paddington to Shrewsbury, and this means that mid-Wales is virtually isolated from fast early and late trains?

Mrs. White: I do not think we can debate individual train services now. Euston is to be the new station for connections with Aberystwith, and the number of services will not be fewer than those already in operation. For all but one train each way each day there is a considerable saving of time proposed.

Regional Planning

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation there has been between the planning boards in Wales and the South-West to co-ordinate the two regional plans which are shortly to be published.

Mrs. White: The chairmen of the two planning Boards maintain close contact on all matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Anderson: Following the opening of the Severn Bridge, investment decisions, both public and private, on either side of the Channel are bound to affect developments on either side. Does my hon. Friend, therefore, not see that there is a case for further institutionalised contact between the two planning bodies on either side of the Bristol Channel?

Mrs. White: I cannot say that I like the phrase "institutionalised contact", but, apart from that, my hon. Friend will be aware of the arrangements being made for a Severnside study in which the Welsh

Office and the respective Departments in England will be closely concerned. As for day-to-day matters, as I have suggested, there is a continual interchange of views.

Roads

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria are employed in assessing the road needs of Wales in comparison with those of Scotland and England so that attention is paid to the special development needs of Wales.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): The road programmes for England, Scotland and Wales are based upon assessments of future traffic volumes and possible savings in travel and accident costs. Road safety, developmental needs and other relevant factors are also taken into consideration.

Mr. Anderson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that in the case of Wales traffic volume is simply not enough as a criterion, because of the very special road needs and because almost the whole of Wales is now a development area? Will he bear this and other considerations in mind?

Mr. Davies: Yes, but the road programme is related to traffic needs and not to comparisons of population or road mileage. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend is jealously safeguarding the interests of Wales.

Mr. Hooson: Will not the Under-Secretary agree that the criteria he has mentioned are insufficient? What about the North-South Wales trunk road? Surely other criteria must come into account in planning such a road to meet the special geographical needs of Wales?

Mr. Davies: We fully appreciate that. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that all relevent factors are taken into consideration.

Haverfordwest Southern By-pass

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in the planning of Haverfordwest southern by-pass.

Mr. Ifor Davies: My right hon. Friend is now ready to state his proposals for


the line of this road and he will publish the statutory notice on 8th March, 1967.

Mr. Donnelly: Whilst expressing my pleasure at my hon. Friend's remarks, may I ask him whether the people who are affected by this by-pass will be able to make any representations or objections?

Mr. Davies: Yes. There will be a period of three months during which objections can be made.

Derelict Sites

Mr. Clifford Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authority areas and how many derelict sites have been visited by the derelict land unit in his Department.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Thirty-five local authority areas and 25 sites have been visited.

Mr. Williams: I greatly appreciate that reply. Will my right hon. Friend say where these visits have been made and if arrangements for further visits by this special unit in his Department are being made?

Mr. Hughes: All the visits made so far have been in the area of the South Wales coalfield. I hope that this activity will be extended to other parts of Wales, including North Wales, later this year. The unit proposes to visit Blaenau Ffestiniog towards the end of March.

Mr. Gower: I do not wish to press the Secretary of State for detailed information, but can he say what proportion of these sites indicated a need for very early attention?

Mr. Hughes: I cannot go into any detail at this stage. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific cases in mind, perhaps he would see me or table a further Question to me. I am glad to say that none of the sites gives any immediate cause for concern, but we are anxious to remove the tips as quickly as we can, not only for psychological reasons, but also to return these areas to their original beauty.

Mr. E. Rowlands: Would my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of giving 100 per cent. grants to local authorities to help in this valuable work?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable grants which are already available under the provisions of the Industrial Development Act, 1966. The substance of his question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Housing

Mr. Probert: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many new dwellings were completed in Wales last year; and how this compares with the average for the preceding five years.

Mr. Ifor Davies: 19,360 compared with 16,070—an increase of 20 per cent.

Mr. Probert: I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging reply. Can he forecast what is likely to be the number of completions up to the end of this year, indicating separately those by local authorities and those from private sources?

Mr. Davies: It is difficult to give a reliable estimate, but I am pleased to be able to assure my hon. Friend that the figures this year have been most encouraging. The Housing Subsidies Bill will offer the most generous subsidies ever given in our history to local authorities and will, indeed, encourage private builders.

Mr. Gower: A Written Answer last Thursday showed that the total number of houses built by local authorities and for private ownership in 1966 were exactly 52 fewer than for 1965. Does the Under-Secretary describe that as dramatic success?

Mr. Davies: In view of the economic position, I would regard that figure as being a very small difference. The figures for January of this year are most encouraging. I have mentioned the Housing Subsidies Bill. I would also mention the mortgage option scheme, which is a great encouragement to private builders.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Free Milk

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in view of the growing difficulty in admitting children to primary school


immediately after their fifth birthday, he will seek to arrange for these children to receive a supply of free milk at home pending their admission to school.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): No, Sir. This would require legislation and a costly administrative machine out of all proportion to the numbers involved.

Dr. Kerr: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a pretty disappointing Answer? As we do not at the moment know what the numbers involved maybe over the next few years, will he take another look at this? Is he aware that the numbers of school children involved might be very small now, but that they are all suffering from the withdrawal of an important nutriment which is particularly important among lower-paid families? Will my hon. Friend consult my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Health to see whether he could not correct the situation?

Mr. Howell: We will certainly reconsider this matter. I am informed that the maximum period for which any child could suffer under these difficulties would be eight to nine weeks, which would involve an outlay of 1s. 4d. a week in that period, or a maximum of 12s. for the whole period.

Mr. Hornby: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the figure of £14 million quoted in The Times yesterday as the amount which could be saved here? Cannot he agree that at least some of this money could be put to better educational uses without depriving those children most in need?

Mr. Howell: I do not think that the facts which the hon. Gentleman quoted from The Times are relevant to the numbers of children who ought to be in school but who cannot get into school.

Humanism

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for introducing into primary and secondary schools courses in the principles of humanism as an alternative to religious instruction.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): Sections 25 to 29 of the Education Act, 1944 lay down certain requirements about religious instruction in maintained schools. I have no legal power myself to dictate what should or should not be included in the school syllabus.

Dr. Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing tendency among parents, and indeed, among school children, to look askance at the value of religious instruction as it is now given in schools? Would he take steps to recognise that the ethics of humanism are not in any way antithetical to the religious instruction which is now given in schools? Would he, perhaps in consultation with one of his advisory councils, consider whether something could be done to promote alternatives to present religious instruction?

Mr. Crosland: If my hon. Friend is saying that there is strong objection to the principle of religious instruction in schools, I do not think that this would be generally correct, if we took into account public opinion as a whole. Where, however, my hon. Friend is right is in saying that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction at the way this instruction is often now given. On this, as he will know, the Plowden Committee gave us a considerable amount of advice, which I am considering along with the Committee's other recommendations.

Mr. John Hall: Would not the Secretary of State agree that the objective of his hon. Friend has been largely attained by the fact that religious instruction in many schools is in the hands of teachers who are either agnostics or atheists?

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will encourage other local authorities to follow the lead of the Inner London Education Authority to encourage teachers of religious instruction to attend courses on humanism.

Mr. Denis Howell: This is a matter for local education authorities to decide for themselves.

Mr. Jackson: Would my hon. Friend not agree that some of the agreed syllabuses now permit the teaching of comparative religion and humanism, that it


is very desirable that teachers of religious instruction, most of whom are Christian, should know something about comparative religion and humanism, and that the Ministry should encourage attendance at such courses?

Mr. Howell: I certainly agree that there should be the widest possible knowledge of all ethical and moral matters by all teachers. It is also desirable to bear in mind that it is not for Ministers and politicians to tell teachers what they shall teach or how they shall teach it.

Universities (Religious Worship)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent it is the policy of his Department to secure that facilities for religious worship are provided in universities; and what steps he is taking to ensure that such facilities are provided in the universities now under construction.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): It is not the policy of the Department to intervene in this matter, which is for the universities themselves.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not important where there are large numbers of young people in areas sometimes away from centres of population that there should be such facilities? Will the hon. Gentleman discuss this informally with the University Grants Committee?

Mr. Roberts: I think that a great deal is done already. Most university courts, if not all, have members of the various religious denominations serving on them. I understand that ministers of religion are given every opportunity and encouragement by our universities to exercise pastoral care.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: If expense is important, as I suspect it is, will the Minister of State ask people to have a look at what happens at London Airport, where various denominations use the same buildings? Could not this be applied to universities?

Mr. Roberts: This is the practice in some universities. Universities generally prefer that buildings for this purpose should be financed from private benefaction rather than from public funds.

Overseas Students (Fees)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received over the proposed fees for overseas students.

Mr. Crosland: I have received representations from a considerable number of bodies. I am carefully considering these, and shall take them into account in subsequent consultations about the application of these proposals.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision to increase fees for overseas students is highly unpopular in academic circles and among students? Can he tell us now what is to be done to help future students as well as existing students? We expect some concessions today.

Mr. Crosland: Whatever my hon. Friend expects, I hope that he will at least do me the courtesy of listening to my speech this afternoon. He will then find that a large number of criticisms which have been made are highly inaccurate and totally false.

Mr. Hornby: Is it, then, the right hon. Gentleman's intention to reject the representations made by the Robbins Committee that overseas students should not be charged at a different rate from home students?

Mr. Crosland: I do not know how much time the hon. Gentleman has this afternoon, but, if he will be so courteous as to listen to what I may say later if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye, he will hear an extremely full answer to that question.

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in those cases where a university represents to him that some easement is merited on grounds of hardship, he will assist universities to meet the fees of students from underdeveloped countries affected by his recent decision on overseas students' fees.

Mr. Crosland: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) on 14th February.—[Vol. 741, c. 73.]

Mr. Rose: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the suggestion implicit in the


Question would allow a certain degree of selectivity to help students from underdeveloped countries while preserving their independence from their own Governments, and will he bear in mind the grave concern felt about this section of overseas students?

Mr. Crosland: I am very much aware of the concern which my hon. Friend expresses. It was for this reason that we decided to set up the fund which I announced last week. I hope also that, when we come to interpret the definition of a course, we shall do what we can to ease hardship.

Mr. Hogg: No doubt, we shall be discussing the general principles involved later today, but will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is, or there is likely to be, a great number of cases of hardship, and will he say how Members should deal with these in relation to their constituencies?

Mr. Crosland: As I shall hope to explain later today, if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye, we are now in process of drawing up the memorandum which will carry the concept of the hardship fund a good deal further. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me a few days, I shall hope to be able to answer his question regarding constituents.

Mr. John Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are overseas students on non-advanced courses paying £30 a year in fees who, on the present proposals, will find their fees running up to £250 a year without any cushioning?

Mr. Crosland: I hope to be able to answer that question fully later this afternoon.

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science by how much the setting up of a fund to provide for overseas students in need will reduce the expected savings from the increase in fees for overseas students.

Mr. Crosland: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await what I shall have to say in the debate later this afternoon.

Mr. van Straubenzee: When we are privileged to listen to that much-heralded speech—and I am happy to say that I shall be present—will the right hon. Gentleman bring into his computation

the extension of the fund which was announced in the early morning of Tuesday by the Minister of State?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman answered the question now, so that the debate which follows can be more intelligible?

Mr. Crosland: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his kind advice. But, having followed this question, he will know that it is one of considerable intricacy, and it would probably be more helpful to the House if I could answer it at rather greater length than is possible at Question Time.

Partially Hearing Children

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue a circular to encourage local authorities to establish more special units for the education of partially hearing children attached to normal primary and secondary schools in England and Wales.

Mr. Denis Howell: No, Sir. Units are being opened as fast as the supply of teachers of the deaf allows. Plans for training more teachers are under discussion.

Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that some authorities are going ahead with plans for educating partially hearing children separately from normal children still? Is it not time that the whole situation was reviewed in order to ensure that scarce education resources are not devoted to a form of education which, perhaps, is not the best in the light of modern knowledge?

Mr. Howell: While it may well be true that this is happening in a number of cases—if my hon. Friend has information, I shall look into any detailed cases which he brings to my attention—I am certain from the figures available to me that the general drift is in the general direction which he would approve.

Coventry (Roman Catholic Primary School)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now authorise the purchase of the site for the proposed two-form entry Roman Catholic primary


school at Radford, Coventry, for which formal planning application was made in June, 1965, and approved by the Coventry planning committee.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Department has not yet received an application from the Coventry local education authority for approval to the purchase of this site since, I understand, the local authority is seeking planning permission for the use of a site at present used for statutory allotments.

Mr. Edelman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, in view of the number of school children in this area, the matter is now of great urgency? Will he concert action with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to ensure that the site is rapidly aquired and that the allotment holders now in possession are given early alternative accommodation?

Mr. Howell: The Ministry of Housing has special responsibility regarding planning applications, listening to objections, and so forth, and it would, therefore, be wrong to bring pressure to bear on that Department in the matter. Coventry has put this scheme in its 1968–69 major building programme. This has not yet been announced by us, although, as my hon. Friend will understand, we are giving special attention to it.

Drug Addiction

Mr. Deedes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has circulated to local education authorities on education in schools about the dangers of drug addiction.

Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend drew attention last year, in Education Pamphlet No. 49 on Health in Education, to the need for instructing older children on the dangers of drug taking. We are now in the course of preparing more extensive advice.

Mr. Deedes: Is it not clear that a great deal of harm is being done merely through blank ignorance? Is it not time to step up the campaign a little and, perhaps, to invite the police and others concerned to co-operate with the education authorities?

Mr. Howell: We are giving very serious consideration to what should be done. There are two sides to the question. While

we want to give more extensive professional advice to teachers in the schools, we do not want unnecessarily to arouse a lot of curiosity which is not there at the moment among youngsters.

Teacher Training

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will initiate a full inquiry into the system of training teachers.

Mr. Crosland: I am still considering this recommendation of the Plowden Report.

Mr. Morrison: Is it not urgent that assistance for the training of teachers should be given priority consideration, and will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to speed up his decision as much as possible?

Mr. Crosland: I agree that a considerable number of people, including the members of the Plowden Council, would like to see an inquiry of this kind. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that the colleges of education have gone through many revolutionary changes almost in the last few years—the three-year course, the B.Ed., "Box and Cox", and all the rest—and the question is whether at this moment of time it would be right to put another rather serious burden of inquiry on them.

Mr. Hornby: When looking into this, will the right hon. Gentleman consider also whether any possible inquiry should include the training of teachers' aides as well as of qualified teachers themselves?

Mr. Crosland: I shall certainly consider that.

Southend-on-Sea (Educational Reorganisation)

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he hopes to give a decision about the Southend-on-Sea Council's scheme for educational reorganisation in the borough.

Mr. Denis Howell: Shortly, Sir.

Mr. Channon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has taken note of the strong objections made to his Department about these proposals? Can he give me an undertaking that there will be a public inquiry before any decision is reached?

Mr. Howell: We cannot give that undertaking. It is because there are a number of objections which my right hon. Friend has to consider that I cannot go further than I did in answer to the original Question.

Teachers (Salaries)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will give an assurance that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to provide substantial increases in the pay and status of teachers; and when he expects to implement this policy.

Mr. Hornby: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the management panel of the Burnham Committee intends to resume negotiations on the claim for higher salaries submitted by the teachers' panel.

Mr. Crosland: Any increase in teachers' pay is in the first instance a matter for the appropriate Burnham Committee. The management panel of the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee has informed the teachers' panel that it cannot make an offer until the Government have made known their policy on pay increases after the end of the period of severe restraint. I cannot yet say when this will be.

Mr. Lewis: As both the Prime Minister and several other Ministers at the time of the last election gave a pledge that this would happen, while making no pledge about severe wage restraint, can my right hon. Friend say whether they will honour their pledge on increased wages rather than impose a severe restraint on wages which never appeared in their election programme?

Mr. Crosland: That question seems to go rather beyond matters for which I am personally responsible, but I bear in mind my hon. Friend's references and I shall continue to do so while we are considering this problem.

Mr. Hornby: As it is less than two years since the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends secured the approval of the House for measures relating to the negotiating procedure for teachers' pay, would it not be much better to let this negotiating procedure go ahead and see where we get to like that?

Mr. Crosland: There is nothing in what is now happening in any way inconsistent with any provisions of the Remuneration of Teachers Act to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The negotiations can and will go ahead as soon as the Government's policy for the period after severe restraint has been announced.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable disgruntlement among teachers at the suspension of negotiations, and will he, therefore, have urgent consultation with his right hon. Friend and with all the appropriate authorities in order to make sure that negotiations can go ahead forthwith, whatever decisions may be taken about their result at a later stage?

Mr. Crosland: I am as anxious as my hon. Friend to get the negotiations started as soon as possible, but we cannot begin negotiation except within the framework of general Government policy covering the period after the period of severe restraint.

Sir J. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear that the negotiating procedure can carry on as before without let or hindrance from him, or, if not, will he explain by what power the Government seek to prevent this happening?

Mr. Crosland: There is no question of the Government using any legal power to prevent it happening. I explained how the position stands in my answer to the original Question. I shall shortly be meeting representatives of all the associations on the Burnham Committee in order to explain the position to them.

Universities (Overseas Students)

Mr. Robert Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the number and percentage of all overseas students at British universities coming from Europe, Commonwealth countries, the United States of America, and other countries, respectively.

Mr. Robert Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the number and percentage of Commonwealth students at British universities coming from advanced countries within the Commonwealth and underdeveloped countries within the Commonwealth respectively.

Mr. Crosland: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that about half the overseas students at British universities come from the Commonwealth, that about 50 per cent. of those students receive grants, and that about 50 per cent. of the Commonwealth students from under-developed countries have no grant? Are those facts not serious?

THE FOLLOWING FIGURES FOR THE NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF FULL-TIME OVERSEAS STUDENTS IN THE VARIOUS CATEGORIES AT BRITISH UNIVERSITIES IN 1965–66 ARE DERIVED FROM THE LATEST PUBLISHED INFORMATION


1—GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS


W. Europe
Commonwealth
United States of America
Other
Total


Number
Per cent.
Number
Per cent.
Number
Per cent.
Number
Per cent.
Number
Per cent.


1,873
11·5
9,081
56
1,643
10
3,659
22·5
16,256
100

These are estimated figures.

3—IN 1965–66, 10,890 OVERSEAS STUDENTS AT BRITISH UNIVERSITIES (67 PER CENT.) CAME FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES


4—ANALYSIS BY METHOD OF SUPPORT





U.K. public funds
Other U.K. funds including university awards
Governments of developing countries
Other Overseas governments and sources
Privately financed (No award or otherwise sponsored)
Total


Number
…
…
2,189
970
2,415
1,906
8,776
16,256


Percentage
…
…
13·5
6·0
14·8
11·7
54·0
100

Studley Agricultural College (Grant)

Mr. Rowland: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why he has decided to withdraw his Department's grant to Studley Agricultural College; if he will reconsider his decision; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Substantial capital expenditure would be required at Studley if it were to continue as an agricultural college. After reviewing the provision for agricultural education at similar levels in the light particularly of the recent report of the Advisory Committee on

Mr. Crosland: On the basis of a rather rapid look through a considerable number of figures, I think that I can confirm that my hon. Friend is correct in his three stated figures.

Mr. van Straubenzee: As the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself so anxious to assist the House in this afternoon's debate, would he put that set of figures in the Vote Office so that we may have them this afternoon?

Mr. Crosland: I shall consider whether that can be done.

Following is the Answer:

Agricultural Education, my right hon. Friend has decided that the needs can be more effectively and more economically met at other institutions. The governors have been told that the Department will give them all possible assistance in finding a satisfactory alternative sphere of future activity for the college and in dealing with the problems which will arise in the transitional period.

Mr. Rowland: Is my hon. Friend aware of the long and distinguished record of the college? Is there conscious discrimination against single-sex colleges, and if so, why should it be applied only to


women's colleges and not men's. Will he reconsider the decision in the light of the considerable representations being made by the governors, staff and students?

Mr. Roberts: I can give an absolute assurance that there was no question of sex discrimination. There arc 40 other agricultural education establishments in England and Wales, practically all of which admit women and offer a very wide choice of different places. I am assured that the women students my hon. Friend has in mind will have no difficulty in securing places in equally good establishments catering for that kind of education.

Mr. Maude: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Department's estimate of the capital expenditure involved in bringing Studley up to what his inspectors require for the future is not accurate, in the governors' view, and that the timing and amounts are excessive? Is he also aware that there is no other institution in the country which provides a farm secretary's course of the nature and quality provided by Studley? Does he really believe that other agricultural institutes give the proper education for the jobs that women can do that Studley does?

Mr. Roberts: We must differ as to the amount involved in bringing Studley up to the required standard. While there is an excellent secretarial course at Studley, there is undoubtedly a wide range of equally good secretarial courses in other agricultural institutions. There will be absolutely no difficulty in placing women students who wish to follow that kind of secretarial course in other colleges.

Primary Schools (Men Teachers)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage more men teachers to go into primary schools.

Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend has urged local education authorities to guide more newly qualified teachers into primary schools and has encouraged colleges of education to continue to bring home to their students the pressing needs of the primary schools. An increasing proportion of men students entering training take courses in primary teaching and

their absolute numbers have more than doubled in four years.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: In view of the alarming and continuing rate of wastage of women teachers to marriage outside the profession, would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is important to get a higher proportion of men students into primary schools—"brave men", to quote Plowden—as that is more likely to persuade women teachers to stay on in their profession and perhaps fall in love with it?

Mr. Howell: All our experience is that teachers marry teachers much more often than is desirable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—from the point of view of pure educational considerations. I am happy to say that there is also a great deal of evidence that that is not to be regarded as absolute wastage since many more are coming back into the profession when their families are growing up.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Prisoners (Handcuffing)

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulations he has issued governing the procedure for the handcuffing of prisoners under escort; and what safeguards exist to secure conformity in the procedures and to ensure that prisoners are not handcuffed unnecessarily.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): It is for the prison governor to decide in any particular case whether handcuffs need to be used, having regard to the age and character of the prisoners, the nature of the journey, and other relevant circumstances. Detailed guidance is given in Prison Standing Orders, of which a copy is in the Library of the House.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Surely it must have been an entirely anomalous and unjustified application of those procedures whereby a constituent of mine was taken handcuffed, under escort, from Hertfordshire all the way to Somerset to face a relatively minor charge of larceny, on which he was granted bail when the hearing was adjourned and which was subsequently dismissed by the justices?


What steps does the right hon. Lady propose to take to see that that sort of thing does not happen?

Miss Bacon: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will let me have the particulars of that case, I shall certainly look into it. Security must always be paramount, and it is entirely a matter for the judgment of the governor.

Mr. John Lee: Could my right hon. Friend have a word with the Secretary of State for Defence and see that prisoners of the military authorities are also treated reasonably in these matters?

Miss Bacon: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and it has been raised in the House.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is the right hon. Lady not aware that I sent the full particulars of the case to her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I had a letter from him last month dealing with those matters?

Miss Bacon: I shall certainly look into that. The Question is general, and I was not aware of the case the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in mind.

Criminal Justice Bill

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what study he has made of the unanimous resolution sent to him by the Newcastle-on-Tyne magistrates on certain aspects of the Criminal Justice Bill; and whether he has received other representations in similar terms.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): I have taken note of the views of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne magistrates. I have received from other bodies representations covering the same points.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that representations have been made by the Magistrates' Association, the Law Society and a great many others on this point? May I have an assurance that not only will he note this but will take action to do away with the practice proposed, which has aroused so much opposition from responsible people in the country.

Mr. Taverne: If we had not already been aware of representations of this sort, we were forcefully made aware of them when the question of bail and suspended sentences was considered in Committee upstairs on the Criminal Justice Bill. There has been a very full discussion of these matters in that Committee.

Dame Irene Ward: Steamrollered.

Prison Sentences (Expectant Mothers)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many expectant mothers received gaol sentences during the years 1965 and 1966; and how many children were born to mothers undergoing prison sentences in the same years.

Miss Bacon: The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. In 1965, 38, and in 1966, 41, women and girls serving prison sentences gave birth to babies in outside hospitals. One baby was born in 1965, and two in 1966, to women in prison.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mitchell? Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott—Question No. 37.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put a supplementary question on No. 35?

Mr. Speaker: I have called Question No. 37.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Blubberhouses Post Office

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the proposed road scheme will mean the demolition of Blubberhouses Post Office; and what steps he is taking to provide alternative facilities and to remove the concern felt by many retirement pensioners.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. We are in close touch with the local authorities concerned and intend to maintain a sub-post office in Blubberhouses after the present office premises are demolished.

Daily Postal Services

Mr. David Steel: asked the Postmaster-General how many households in the United Kingdom do not receive a daily postal service; and what steps he is taking to reduce the figure.

Mr. Short: About 4,000, mostly on off-shore islands, with some in other remote rural areas. A daily service is given to such places when the amount of correspondence for delivery is enough to make the cost worthwhile.

Mr. Steel: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is extraordinary that, in this day and age, there should be places on the mainland of Britain that do not receive a daily postal service? Will he look again at the case I sent to him—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to have Question Time against a background of conversation.

Mr. Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the case I sent him from my constituency, where the service is technically feasible although admittedly at a fairly high cost per letter?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman wrote me about Upper Ettrick Valley and I replied on 11th February. The cost per letter would have been Is. 6d. and we felt that this was too high to meet.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Simonstown Agreement

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been made by the South African Prime Minister on the supply of spare parts to South African naval forces under the terms of the Simonstown Agreement; and what reply he has sent.

The Minister of Defence (Equipment) (Mr. Roy Mason): None, Sir.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread misunderstanding on this issue and that it is generally thought that we have failed to observe in specific terms a specific agreement? If that is not so, will he take an early opportunity to make it clear?

Mr. Mason: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are supplying the South African Navy with spares required for repairs for ships that we have supplied to it in recent years.

Polaris Submarine (Launching)

40. Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made for a Minister to attend the ceremony at Cammell Lairds, Birkenhead, to mark the launching in the near future of the Royal Navy's next Polaris submarine.

Mr. Mason: My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Navy will attend this launch.

Mr. Marten: In view of the Prime Minister's commitment to this Polaris, would it not be more suitable if he himself went?

Mr. Mason: Two Ministers—one representing the Royal Navy and the other representing the Government—should be sufficient.

Mr. Heffer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the entire Polaris submarine programme is a great waste of money? Does not he agree that the City of Liverpool and other areas on Merseyside could do with that money being spent in getting over the housing problem?

Mr. Mason: No, Sir. Meanwhile, this programme is providing local employment in the region.

Mr. Powell: Will the ceremony be followed by a funeral service for the Government's proposal for an Atlantic nuclear force?

Mr. Mason: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Asquithian "wait and see".

TREATY OF ROME

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now cause to be published a Command Paper setting out the changes required in the Statute Law on Great Britain adhering to the Treaty of Rome in its existing form and the means by which such changes would be brought about.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I have at this stage nothing to add to the reply given to the right hon. and learned Gentleman by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15th November lastt.—[Vol. 736, c. 72.]

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister's reply then was that he would continue to bear in mind the suggestion I had originally made to him in May, at which date he had also promised to bear it in mind? At what stage with Her Majesty's present Ministers does contemplation turn to action?

Mr. Mulley: It would be more appropriate to implement the right hon. and learned Gentleman's wish when we have decided whether or not to apply for membership of the Common Market.

PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT DE GAULLE (DISCUSSION)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister what restrictions on British commercial activities in France were discussed during his meeting with President de Gaulle.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): None Sir.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the Prime Minister aware that, for a period of some six months, delivery of British exports to France in British vehicles has been restricted by what is known as the "zone court", some 250 kilometres from the coast, after which all goods have to be transferred to French vehicles? No such restrictions operate on French deliveries to this country. Is he further aware that it is the general view in France that our licensing procedures are unduly complex? Will he ask the Minister of Transport to look into this to see whether we cannot get some reciprocity?

The Prime Minister: This matter was not discussed with President de Gaulle, and I am beginning to understand why. Certainly this would be a matter for discussion with the French Government by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I will discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister what instructions he gives to Ministers with regard to their officially addressing rallies called to support British entry to the Common Market.

Mr. Harold Walker: asked the Prime Minister if he will instruct Ministers and other members of the Government not to attend and address, in their official capacity, meetings called for purposes inconsistent with Government policy.

The Prime Minister: The rules governing Ministerial conduct in these matters are well known and no further instructions are necessary.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Foreign Secretary made an extremely good speech last night? Is he further aware that, if his negotiations should not succeed, it will be because Ministers have shown too little enthusiasm for the cause rather than too much?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the second part of that supplementary question, but I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who, on this occasion, as on all other occasions—and this applies to all Ministers at public meetings, held under whatever auspices—was expressing Government policy.

Mr. Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that mine is a very different Question? Will he also recognise that the presence of Ministers gives, by virtue of their office, an undeserved prestige and prominence to what might otherwise be inconsequential gatherings? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Will he make it clear to all his colleagues that the country is not committed to unconditional entry into the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: The House is delighted with my hon. Friend's phrasing. The position has always been that Ministers can attend meetings under the auspices of different bodies without necessarily sharing the objectives and the policy of those bodies. Every Minister I have ever known has done that at some time or other.
The position regarding entry into the Common Market is as I stated it on 10th November, 1966, when I said that we were undertaking these visits to see whether it was possible to get conditions for entry into Europe which would safeguard essential British and Commonwealth interests. That has been the basis throughout from 10th November, when it was announced.

Mr. Grimond: However inconsequential, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party are now almost always meetings called for purposes inconsistent with Government policy?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Even the very much larger meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party than the meetings the right hon. Gentleman is used to are not called for that purpose.

Mr. Sandys: Is the Prime Minister aware that the organisers of last night's Albert Hall meeting are most grateful for the massive advance publicity provided free of charge by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that they are very grateful, and I am sure also that all who attended would be grateful that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made quite clear the difficulties and problems about British entry and did not lend himself to the doctrine of unconditional entry, which is the policy of the party which I think the right hon. Member still supports.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am very grateful for the favourable commendation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), but in the Government's present difficulties, which cannot be concealed, does he not think it advisable for members of the Cabinet to be careful about the company that they keep?

The Prime Minister: In view of the courtesies between the two right hon. Members, which I must say are over my head, I would certainly not feel that any difficulty has arisen from the presence of my right hon. Friend at that meeting, despite the fact that I understand that at least one right hon. Gentleman present took advantage of the occasion to make

a little party capital, even though I thought that it was a non-party occasion.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the Prime Minister tell us who are these mysterious people who want to go into Europe without any conditions? So far we have never been able to discover one.

Lord Balniel: In view of the unutterable confusion caused by the various Ministerial statements on the Common Market, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is thinking of issuing a D notice to stop any of them being reported?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister when he expects to reach a decision on whether or not to apply for membership of the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to my reply to a supplementary question by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 2nd February.—[Vol. 740, c. 769.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will arrange time for debate in the House between the ending of his probes in Europe and the taking of a decision on entry? Secondly, would he not agree that pressure by Her Majesty's Government for a non-proliferation treaty, which might be held to discriminate against or between existing members of the European Community, would have a very damaging effect upon our chances of entry?

The Prime Minister: The timing of any decision, as I have told the House, is a matter that will have to be considered after the present series of visits is complete. I have nothing to add to that at present. With regard to the nonproliferation treaty, I know that there are difficulties for Germany and other non-nuclear countries in this matter, because of their fears, which I think are unfounded—[An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."]—they are worried about the effect on their peaceful development of atomic energy. In my discussions with the Chancellor of Germany last week there was no suggestion that this was in any way connected with the question of Britain's entry to the Community, except that our entry would help strengthen


Euratom or any successor body to Euratom.

Mr. Bellenger: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that when he said "We mean business", it gave the impression abroad that we did? Therefore, if we are to maintain that impression, should it not be now, not in the far distant future, that the Government must make up their mind, one way or the other, as to whether we are to go into the Community?

The Prime Minister: It meant that we did mean business, and that we do mean business. All of the European leaders we have talked to are in no doubt whatever about the fact that we mean business. Each one to whom we have talked has received reports from the others, fully convinced of that fact. As I made clear on 10th November. we have to find out what are the likely terms, conditions and difficulties. When we have finished the tour we can then take a decision about it. It may be that one or two of the countries with whom we are dealing might feel that these difficulties can be overcome, given further discussions, before there is any question of formal negotiation.

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister how far he discussed Great Britain's immigration problems with the heads of the Common Market countries; and what undertakings he sought that they would accept Commonwealth immigrants both from Great Britain and from all the Commonwealth countries.

The Prime Minister: I have had no discussions on this problem, Sir.

Sir C. Osborne: Why did not the Prime Minister have discussions on this important problem? Will he ask the European countries which of them is prepared to accept Afro-Asian Commonwealth immigrants from this country?

The Prime Minister: The reason why I did not have discussions about this question was because the purpose of my visit was to discuss the question of Britain's entry into the European Economic Community. This did not seem to be a relevant consideration in those discussions.

WELSH OFFICE (BOARD OF TRADE SERVICES)

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Prime Minister if he will give his reasons for not transferring the functions in Wales of the Board of Trade to the Welsh Office.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales already has oversight within Wales of the execution there of the Board of Trade's national policy. While I am naturally always considering whether any changes are needed, my present view is that there is advantage to Welsh economic development in the retention of the administrative link between the Board of Trade's present services in Wales and its central and regional services elsewhere.

Mr. Evans: Does the Prime Minister seriously believe that the present system is a success in Wales, when there are 10,000 fewer men at work now than there were 10 years ago? Is he aware that there are something like another 1 million in England? Despite the trumpetings about State-owned industry, the State-owned industry established since 1964 employs only 226 men? Is it not time that the Government resigned from Wales? We will leave them to the English.

The Prime Minister: I am not responsible for the whole of the 10 years described by the hon. Gentleman, but I assure him that I believe this to be the right system. The attraction of new industry to Wales depends not only on what is done by the Welsh Office, but also by the Board of Trade, in diverting factories that might otherwise settle in more congested parts of the country. He asks about failure of policy. In 1963 4·2 per cent. of the industrial development certificates issued in Great Britain went to Wales; 1964, 5·5 per cent.; 1965, 7·3 per cent.; and in the first three-quarters of last year 14·1 per cent—more than three times as many.

RHODESIA

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that it is his policy not to negotiate with the Smith régime in Rhodesia until there is a return


to constitutional rule, what steps he is now taking to secure such a return.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answers I gave to Question on 20th December, 19th January and 2nd February.—[Vol. 738, c. 1176; Vol. 739, c. 648; Vol. 740, c. 762.]

Sir C. Osborne: If it is wrong to bomb Vietnam, would it not be wrong to bomb Rhodesia? If it is right to try to get a peaceful settlement in Vietnam, would the right hon. Gentleman try once more to get a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: I have not heard any suggestion that we should bomb Rhodesia. The question of Vietnam is an entirely separate issue, which was fully discussed last week. As the House and the hon. Gentleman know—we debated it—we reached the basis of a very fair settlement in Rhodesia which was rejected by extremists of the régime. The hon. Gentleman voted to support them in their rejection of it.

Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there are many people in Rhodesia, of all races, who find the present illegal régime abhorrent? Will he say what proposals the Government have to help and encourage these people, who are sticking out against the illegal régime?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that there are very many people in Rhodesia, including many Europeans, who are of the opinion described by my hon. Friend. They have not made their opposition to the régime effective in a political or real sense. As to what we are doing, I would remind my hon. Friend of the action we took in December.

HONOURS SYSTEM (PRIME MINISTER'S LIST)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that it remains his policy to advise the retention of a Prime Minister's list in the honours system in this country.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Fisher: I am very glad to have the Prime Minister's reassurance. Would he agree, and reaffirm, that the honours system is a good way of recognising pub-

lic service, at no cost to the taxpayer, and to the gratification of the recipients and their wives, which is also important? Because of this, does he not agree that the system should be continued?

The Prime Minister: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is so pleased with the system. For my part, as I have told the House, I am always looking at ways in which it might be improved and made more fair.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his affirmative answer does not meet with approval from below the Gangway?

The Prime Minister: Naturally I am very sorry to hear that, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would not suggest that we should continue an honours system without there being a Prime Minister's list in it, or I should just be a postbox for suggestions sent to me by other people.

Mr. Kershaw: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that a system whereby the only profession in the country which can never be honoured is the profession of politics is altogether in the public interest?

The Prime Minister: We have been over this before in question and answer. I think that very many of those who engage in the public service, be they political or not, now have a fairer chance of getting an honour than they had under the system by which very largely honours were given to members of one political party. I have expressed my views about what I thought was the unfortunate tendency of a previous Government to give knighthoods and similar honours to no fewer than 134 back-bench Members of their own party.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: Would the Leader of the House kindly state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 27TH FEBRUARY: In the morning—

Sunday Cinematograph Order.

Second Reading of the Teachers Super-annuation Bill [Lords], which is a Consolidation Measure.

In the afternoon—

Debate on a Government Motion to approve the White Paper on Defence (Command No. 3203), which will be concluded on Tuesday, 28th February.

At the end on Tuesday, remaining stages of the General Rate Bill [Lords], which is a Consolidation Measure.

WEDNESDAY, 1ST MARCH: In the morning—

Sugar Beet (Research and Education) (Increase of Contributions) Order and the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvements) (Grants) Scheme.

In the afternoon—

Supply (10th Allotted Day):

Navy Estimates, 1967–68, Vote A.

THURSDAY, 2ND MARCH: Supply (11th Allotted Day):

Debate, until Seven o'clock, on an Opposition Motion on the refusal of the Secretary of State for Scotland to grant the N.A.L.G.O. pay award.

Afterwards, a debate on emigration from Scotland, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY, 3RD MARCH: Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 6TH MARCH: The business proposed:

In the morning is—

Double Taxation Relief Orders relating to Canada, Trinidad and Tobago and Singapore, and the Central Banks (Income Tax Schedule C Exemption) Order.

In the afternoon—

Supply (12th Allotted Day):

Army Estimates, 1967–68, Vote A.

It may be convenient for the House to know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Tuesday, 11th April.

Mr. Heath: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on the Service Estimates he will follow the normal custom and suspend for two hours to give the House extra time for debate? Secondly, on the Defence White Paper,

can he confirm that the Government Motion will be the simple one to approve the White Paper?

Mr. Crossman: On the first question, if it is for the convenience of the House—I think that it usually is—I would agree to the extra two hours on each of the three days. On the second question, I do not think that a decision has finally been reached on the Government Motion.

Mr. Thorpe: Would the right hon. Gentleman, possibly even by next week, look into the incredible situation of voting on the matters which we take in the morning sittings? Yesterday it was thought so inconvenient to vote at noon on a matter debated in the morning that we had to wait until after one o'clock the next morning to take the vote. Could not these matters be voted on in the afternoon after the public business?

Mr. Crossman: I thank the hon. Gentleman. We should learn by experience of our morning sittings. We shall certainly consider whether the procedure can be changed and at what time it will be convenient for the House to have its Divisions.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to early day Motion No. 427, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) and one or two others? Can he offer us any time in the near future to debate it?

[That this House takes note of the exploratory nature of the visits to West European capitals by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary; regrets the activities of those who have seized this occasion to intensify their demand that Her Majesty's Government should apply unconditionally for entry to the European Economic Community; deplores, in particular, the speeches in which the Leader of the Opposition has invited Her Majesty's Government to break its pledged word to the electorate and to other peoples of the Commonwealth; and declares that Great Britain, in consultation with her European Free Trade Association partners, should be ready to enter the European Economic Community only if essential British and Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded.]

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that it will be to the surprise of my hon. Friend when I say that I do not think that there is much time in the near future to debate this or any other Motion. We have a lot of work to do on our Defence Estimates. It has been made perfectly clear that these visits are strictly exploratory.

Mr. McMaster: As more than 100 Members have signed Motion No. 426 on rising unemployment, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his view that there are more important topics than employment and the Government's mishandling of the economic situation? Will he provide time to debate this important subject?

[That this House views with dismay the high rate of unemployment in the economically weaker parts of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate and effective steps to halt the alarming rise in the numbers out of work in those areas.]

Mr. Crossman: I do not recollect expressing the view that unemployment was an unimportant subject. We are approaching the time of year when the House spends quite a number of days on economic affairs. But I will bear the request in mind.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does my right hon. Friend think that the House has had enough time to digest the Plowden Report? May we expect an early debate on it?

Mr. Crossman: I recognise the great interest in the Plowden Report, but until we have completed our work on the Estimates the Government certainly will not be able to give time to debate it next week or, I think I can say, the week after.

Mr. Sandys: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has wrongfully accused me of hawking about a confidential official document to the Press, and in view of the wide publicity which this has received, would the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister whether he will be good enough to answer orally a Question which I have tabled for next Tuesday asking him what evidence he has to support this very serious charge?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly communicate that message to the Prime

Minister. Meanwhile, I would respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the simplest thing would be for him to tell the House how he did get it.

Mr. Hamling: Reverting to the matter raised by the Leader of the Liberal Party, would my right hon. Friend re-examine the whole question of morning sittings, particularly with a view to relieving the burden on the servants of the House?

Mr. Crossman: We are always meditating and reflecting on the experience we have week by week. I think that we are moving well. We are certainly moving with more celerity than at other times. We are doing business well. But I would not like to think that we should come to a conclusion on morning sittings for quite a long time.

Mr. Turton: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to allow a separate debate to take place on the Select Committee's recommendation for urgent and topical debates in the light of the fact that crises such as that concerning Malta clearly cannot be fitted in to the present rules and precedents?

Mr. Crossman: What I think I said was that I felt that there was no time in the near future for a debate, and I thought that that matter might be taken in conjunction with the Select Committee's report on finance. We have not yet seen that report. We had better make up our minds when we see it. I do not think that we shall be able to have a debate on the recommendation about the topical nature of debates in the near future.

Mr. Gardner: In view of the strong feeling expressed in the House during the passage of the London Government Bill, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is likely to hear anything next week about the exercise of democracy in Brierley Hill.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that that is a business question. I do not understand it even.

Sir D. Glover: Both sides of the House are very worried about the right hon. Gentleman's leadership. May we have a debate on procedure at a very early date? The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) has already asked a


question on this matter. Yesterday we debated for 15 hours on a day when we were supposed to finish at 9.30. It is obvious that the right hon. Gentlman has lost control of the proceedings of the House. Therefore, could we have—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not argue at business question time. We must just ask for time for debates.

Mr. Crossman: If that is the hon. Gentleman's view about my leadership, there is a very simple way by which he can get a debate on the subject.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Opposition are making a deliberate and concerted attempt to sabotage the concept of morning sittings? Would he deal with the problem by taking on Tuesday and Thursday mornings all business normally taken after ten o'clock in the evening?

Mr. Crossman: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, all we are doing for the most part is to take in the morning the business normally taken after ten o'clock. I notice that the time that we spend on it varies from day to day but it is not very greatly different; so that we are taking business from the evening to the morning with useful results.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of interest on all sides of the House on the question of decimal currency, not so much on the principle but on whether the Government are picking the right unit? Can he find time for an early debate on the matter and assure us that it will be on a free vote?

Mr. Crossman: The Government's decision has been already announced, and I can now say that legislation is expected in the not too far distant future. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to challenge the issue or the decision of the Government, that is something which he can do on a Supply Day.

Mr. Moyle: Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to debate the Bill for the control of unregistered and unlicensed clubs, in view of the drain on police manpower being caused by policing these clubs under the existing law?

Mr. Crossman: I would ask my hon. Friend to give me notice of that question.

I cannot tell him exactly when we can expect that Bill.

Mr. Iain Maclod: If I may return to the subject which I raised, which is in no sense a party one, would the Leader of the House recognise that, if he intends to go ahead with legislation, inevitably that means putting the Whips on and, therefore, this decision has been taken? But as it is in no sense a party matter and is something which affects the country for decades and perhaps for centuries, would he not be well advised to take the free opinion of the House in advance?

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has put that to me. This is a very important issue and one which matters for the long-term future. If there is a feeling that it is something which should be discussed, certainly we can discuss it through the usual channels, and I hope that the Opposition will be forthcoming in the time that they will contribute to this end.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does the Leader of the House realise that a Government Whip, the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), blocked the Livestock Import Control Bill last Friday? Is it the Government's intention to block that Bill continually, or will the right hon. Gentleman protect the rights of back benchers?

Mr. Crossman: The answer to the first part of the question is, yes. Since the question was raised last week, I have considered this carefully with my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. We have come to the conclusion that, regardless of how Administrations in the past may have contrived to have objection voiced to Private Members' Bills—because this is not the first time that it has been raised—the Government should, where appropriate, overtly take action to prevent automatic undebated Second Readings.

Mr. Peyton: Does the Leader of the House not think that it is time that we had a debate or at least a statement on wages, so that the obscurity which now surrounds Government policy can be dispelled and this very damaging factor removed from industrial relations?

Mr. Crossman: The answer which I gave just now about unemployment applies in this case. We shall be debating economic affairs in the future, and opportunities will come. But I do not


see a chance in Government time for a debate on the subject.

Mr. Heath: As the whole House attaches great importance to the question of decimalisation, we would agree to accept the offer of the Leader of the House, and we will provide half a day out of Supply time if the Government will provide half a day without the Whips on.

Mr. Crossman: The exact timing we can discuss through the usual channels. However, I must remind the House that we have a programme to get through. This will be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Clifford Williams: May I ask my right hon. Friend when we can expect the Second Reading of the Leasehold Reform Bill?

Mr. Crossman: Week by week I hope to make a business statement on it, and now the hope is nearly reaching fulfilment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the Leader of the House realise that many private Members are dissatisfied because, although some business has been transferred from the evenings to the mornings, we are losing half a day of debate on the major issues which are discussed in the afternoons and evenings? Since one of the objects of this reform was supposed to be to give the House the opportunity of debating broad general issues of importance, is this not retrograde, and will he not consider it further?

Mr. Crossman: Certainly I will. We are also gaining a little time in the afternoon by our habit of taking Ministerial statements in the mornings which would otherwise postpone the start of debates. For example, we had a statement on foot-and-mouth disease yesterday morning.

Mr. Driberg: Would the Leader of the House take some other opportunity of making a fuller statement on his announcement about Government Whips blocking private Members' legislation? Many such Bills are sponsored on an all-party basis, and usually it has been considered undesirable for Government Whips to intervene.

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that I would add anything. I made a precise statement. I said that there were times

when it was felt that action of this sort was necessary. What I would like to say is that this, after all, is permitting a Bill to become law sometimes virtually without any discussion on it. [Interruption.] It can also be done on Committee stage. A Bill can get through virtually with no discussion. It is the Government's view that this is a rare exception and that normally Bills should be debated fully and should not automatically get some privilege over those which are debated.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I desire to ask a question which may not come under the heading of business, Mr. Speaker. I should like your guidance about the ability of private Members to put down Questions to the Prime Minister. At what point should I raise this matter?

Mr. Speaker: This is difficult. The procedure for getting Questions to the Prime Minister is governed by the rationing of time which, I believe, is agreed between both sides. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should put his Question to them.

Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Gentleman has suggestions to make about Question Time, we like to discuss such matters through the usual channels, since it is a matter purely for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Costain: When the Leader of the House makes a statement about Private Members' Bills, is he aware that the Road Safety Bill went through the House on the nod and has resulted in the saving of many lives? Would it not be wrong to block Bills simply because the Whips do not like them?

Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Gentleman reads in HANSARD what I said, I did not say that it should never occur. I said that there were times when Bills were unsuitable pieces of legislation to go through without any debate.

Mr. Fowler: To put the matter in the form of a business question, can the Leader of the House find time to debate the failure of the Opposition to move the Writ for Brierley Hill, which is depriving that constituency of representation?

Mr. Crossman: It is a subject on which we can all reflect with some degree of


interest and pleasure, but I doubt whether we shall have time to debate it.

Mr. Hooson: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Early Day Motion No. 415 on U.N.E.S.C.O., in the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), myself and other hon. Members, and supported by 100 hon. Members of all parties? In view of the fact that there are so few debates on international institutions and their work, can he promise a debate on it in the fairly near future?

[That this House, noting that 20 years have now elapsed since the foundation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and noting the increased nationalism and rising tensions throughout the world which have occurred in the absence of any significant action by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation to encourage a sense of world community, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to propose at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation a programme to encourage a dual perspective in education, world as well as national, so that opportunity is given in the curriculum for balancing national loyalty with a measure of conscious loyalty to the human race as a whole in all its diversity.]

Mr. Crossman: Certainly, I will consider this and discuss through the usual channels the extent of the interest in having this particular aspect of foreign affairs singled out for debate. There are a number of other aspects of foreign affairs which have been put to me as Urgent, and I should not like to say that this particular one should take precedence over them.

Mr. Cant: Do I understand that, in accepting the offer from the Opposition of time for discussion of decimalisation, the Leader of the House offered to withdraw the Whips?

Mr. Crossman: I made no such offer. [Interruption.] I heard an interesting offer from the Leader of the Opposition on the subject, to which I replied with a decent reticence.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Leader of the House aware that in recent months there has been a real deterioration of trade in the textile industry? A number of mills have closed down and a great many men and women are out of work. In view of the desperate situation in my part of the country, will the right hon. Gentleman give time to debate the subject at an early stage?

Mr. Crossman: This is exactly the kind of matter which the Opposition should raise in their own time.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the forthcoming debates on the Budget, which the Leader of the House has announced, and which usually involve late night sittings, will my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate the morning sittings with a view to preventing the House from burning the candle at both ends?

Mr. Crossman: I hesitate to correct my hon. and learned Friend, but it is my impression that the Budget is a period when sometimes ordinary Members can go to bed at a reasonable time. If my hon. and learned Friend is thinking of the Finance Bill later, I can tell him that I am looking forward to the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure on the treatment of Finance Bills, and I hope to see some helpful proposals from it.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that a week on Monday the Leader of the House is to consider extending the hours of sitting for a couple of hours on the Army Estimates, may I ask him whether, in the interests of the staff, we could not nip that off Monday morning and not have an interminable sitting from 10 a.m. until half past 11 or 12 o'clock on the Monday night? Would this not be an opportunity to do something decent to try to relieve the terrible strain under which the staff have to work?

Mr. Crossman: I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees. I have been pointing out to the House the problems which the staff have in our long periods of sitting. Nevertheless, I do not think that it would really be the wish of the House that these traditional extra two hours on the three Estimates should all be deducted from other debates.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any precedent for the Opposition lining themselves up with the trade unions in demanding an increase in pay, as they are doing in the N.A.L.G.O. case? Can my right hon. Friend mark this historic occasion by leaving it to a free vote of the House?

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend always makes very constructive suggestions. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has listened to what he said about the originality of this debate, but I doubt whether my hon. Friend's views will be accepted, at least in their practical conclusions.

Sir J. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to give a much better answer to the question first put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton)? Is he not aware that the whole wages front and the position of negotiations is in a state of chaos? Surely the House has a right to expect a statement on Government policy before the Budget?

Mr. Crossman: There is no sign as far as I know that the wages front is in chaos. On the contrary, what is true is that extremely important negotiations are taking place and it would be quite unsuitable to have a debate until there is a conclusion.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his reply apropos Motion No. 427? Will he acknowledge that the terms of this Motion are of vital importance to the nation and ought to be debated at an early occasion?

Mr. Crossman: I would not agree with my hon. Friend. I think that we debate or discuss this Motion twice a week at the Prime Minister's Question Time. Clear statements have been made by the Government on Government policy, and I think that my hon. Friend has had all the answers that he could conceivably want to every aspect of this question.

Sir J. Rodgers: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he intends to reveal to the House information about his wages policy which has already been given to the T.U.C. and the C.B.I.?

Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether a statement can be

expected from my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, I shall ask him about it.

Sir Knox Cunningham: With regard to the blocking of the two animal welfare Bills, the Leader of the House said that the Government had come to the conclusion that it would not be right for a Bill to go through on the nod and take precedence over other Bills. Does that mean that the Government's new policy will be that in general all Bills will be blocked by Government Whips and not go through on the nod?

Mr. Crossman: I hesitate to indulge in otiose repetition. I have twice stated in precise terms the Government's view, which is that there are occasions when certain Bills are not suitable for nodding through. The instances which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave are instances of Bills which we, rightly or wrongly, thought were unsuitable to be nodded through.

Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend say on how many occasions next week it is the intention of the Government to move to exempt business after Ten o'clock?

Mr. Crossman: I think that I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Hirst: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is not always and only the Government who may think that a Private Members' Bill is unsuitable to go through on the nod, but indeed other private Members?

Mr. Crossman: Of course I am.

Mr. G. Campbell: On the question of decimal currency, is the Leader of the House aware that in the only debate in this House since the Government's White Paper, a Christmas Adjournment debate initiated by me, the Chief Secretary gave an assurance that there would be a full debate on the matter before the Government's preferred method was adopted?

Mr. Crossman: I was not aware of that, and I shall certainly look it up, but I think that this matter can be satisfactorily dealt with through the usual channels by the suggestion put to me by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. McNamara: With regard to the important question put to him by the


hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham), would not my right hon. Friend agree that it might be more important to change the conventions of the House to discuss the affairs of some of the depressed citizens of the country—although we regard animals as very important—and discuss Ulster before animals?

Mr. Crossman: I take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Kershaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answers about the wages policy get worse and worse? He has now said that there is no point in the House of Commons discussing it until everybody else has been told and made up his mind, and therefore there is no sense in having a debate. Will he reconsider the matter and realise how important it is to know something about this before the Budget?

Mr. Crossman: It seems that my answers were inaudible. I thought that I made the position clear. First, when I was asked about a statement, I said that I would ask my right hon. Friend to make one when he found it suitable. Secondly, I said that from the Government's point of view important negotiations were going on and the time for discussion was not now in the middle of them. Thirdly, I said that if the Opposition wanted to raise this issue in a polemical way they had their opportunities for doing so.

Mr. John Lee: With regard to Motion No. 427, will my right hon. Friend take it upon himself to send a copy of it to Sir Patrick Riley, who seems to be in some doubt about the Government's policy?

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House is becoming weary of his refusal to give straight answers to questions at business time? If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to protect the rights of back benchers, is it not time that he made way for someone who is?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not exactly a business question.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer to

my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is not clear, that employers and trade unionists throughout the country have no idea what wages policy the Government have in mind after the period of severe restraint—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting into argument again.

Mr. Webster: Further to the excellent point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), may we have an opportunity to debate Government policy on wages? It is Government policy. Cannot we have a satisfactory answer?

Mr. Crossman: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the use of this time. We are discussing business. I have made it clear that the Government are not going to provide Government time. If he wants to discuss it with his right hon. Friend in Supply time, let him do that upstairs.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the vote at the end of the defence debate on Tuesday will be a free vote?

Mr. Crossman: I think I can confirm that it will not be.

Mr. Nott: Reverting to the question of the wages policy, it is future Government policy which is being debated widely in the Press. Every newspaper is carrying reports of the Government's policy and the discussions taking place. Why cannot he find time to debate this in the House?

Mr. Crossman: I am in some danger of tedious repetition, because I get asked the same question time and time again, and I have to make the same reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] In that case I shall answer with repetition. We regard this question as unsuitable for debate in the immediate future. If the Opposition wish to attack the Government's position they have their own time to do so.

Sir C. Osborne: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will reconsider the decision to find early urgent time to discuss unemployment, in view of the fact that in recent weeks 50,000 Lancashire textile workers have lost their jobs, another 100,000 are threatened with unemployment, and to the unemployed the


only thing that really matters is their jobs? Cannot we have—

Mr. Speaker: Order, the hon. Member is drifting into argument.

Mr. Crossman: The answer is the same as that which I gave 25 minutes ago. This subject deeply concerns the hon. Member. Certainly we shall look ahead, but I see no chance this week or next week—or before Easter, really—to get a whole day of Government time for this subject, so I must repeat that the Opposition have their opportunities to discuss what they want to put on the agenda.

Mr. James Griffiths: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have noticed that in recent weeks business questions have taken up more than half an hour of the valuable time of the House? Will you give consideration to the need for protecting hon. Members who want to take part in an important debate?

Mr. Speaker: This is a difficult matter. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman, but this matter is in the control of the House and not in the control of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Heath: There are two points which the Leader of the House may be able to clear up. First, as the Prime Minister was good enough to answer the original Question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) after Questions, will the Leader of the House bring to the Prime Minister's notice the fact that it would be desirable also to answer this one after Questions?
Secondly, is it really in keeping with the progressive, radical, reforming outlook which the Leader of the House is so anxious to bring to our deliberations that the House—not even some of his hon. Friends below the Gangway—should not be able to discuss the whole question of wages policy before the Government make their decision?

Mr. Crossman: On the first point, I will communicate to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the anxieties of the right hon. Gentleman about the Question of the right hon. Member for Streatham. As for his second point, the issue is for me. We think that on the whole we have enough business for the next fort-

night which we are determined to get through. [Interruption.] If the Opposition feel that they want a debate on this subject, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will stage a debate for the benefit of both sides of the House.

Mr. James Johnson: On a point of order. Is it a fact, Mr. Speaker, that if any hon. Member gets up and asks a Question about business this discussion can go on interminably?

Mr. Speaker: Theoretically, it is possible for the discussion to continue until the 629 right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have put their business questions. I hope that that is only the theoretical position.

Mr. James Griffiths: Further to my point of order. With respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I have never before understood that business questions could go on interminably, without being brought to an end. If they can, will the Leader of the House submit this matter for consideration to the Committee on Procedure? It could result in the House being placed in an intolerable position if, week after week, we spend half an hour or three-quarters of an hour discussing business.

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's difficulties. The last thing that I want to do is to give the impression that I am not prepared to answer business questions, because I am. It is difficult to give much variety in answering questions which are repeated time after time, in almost identical form.

Mr. Speaker: I was addressed on a point of order by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). This is a matter which the Committee on Procedure might look into.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Surely last week, after the publication of the estimates of expenditure, it was agreed that we should have a general economic debate before the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would have discussions about this. Is he now saying that there will not be discussions about it?

Mr. Crossman: On the contrary, I said that I thought that there were opportunities before the Budget of debating economic affairs, which could be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of the experience we are having this afternoon, which is very like the experience we had last Thursday afternoon and the Thursday afternoon before that, is there not rapidly building up an almost unanswerable case for transferring business questions to Wednesday mornings?

Mr. Crossman: I thank my hon. Friend, but I want morning sittings to be a success. I would rather keep business questions to this period.

Sir J. Rodgers: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow second questions on business.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd Series],—considered.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS STUDENTS (INCREASED FEES)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first Motion on the Order Paper, I have to announce to the House that I have not selected the two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), after 'expenditure' to insert:
'and recognising that a Conservative Government would have attacked the present basis of all the social services, including education, deliberately introducing discriminatory systems nevertheless'
and at the end to add:
'and urges the Secretary of State for Education and Science to take effective steps to exclude in particular students from developing countries from this increase'
or the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), at the end to add:
believes that any desirable economy could better be made by adjusting overseas aid programmes, since no form of aid to developing countries is more advantageous than the equipping of the future leaders of these countries; particularly regrets that the students who will be prevented from studying here by this miserable exercise of bureaucratic parsimony are those likely to be of special value to their countries, namely those who are independently seeking further education on their own initiative and not at the behest and with the approval of legal régimes; believes that in any case such potential national leaders will not stay at home to strengthen local universities, but will seek their further education abroad, probably in countries whose educational systems are in thrall to evil and oppressive régimes of the Left; and, finally, believes that a Government that cuts public expenditure in this way while continuing unnecessarily to subsidise school meals and rich council tenants ought either to get its priorities sorted out or to resign and put its policies to the test of public opinion.'

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In view of the fact that we are left with two and three-quarter hours to discuss this vitally important question and that on most occasions Front Bench speakers at the beginning and the end of the debate take approximately half an hour each, this will leave three-quarters of an hour for back benchers. In view of the

serious nature of the debate and the decision which the House, must take—there are many of us who are uncommitted one way or the other and wish to hear all the arguments very carefully—could the debate be extended for one hour? Alternatively, may we have an assurance that particularly the Front Bench speakers who are to wind up the debate will speak for only a quarter of an hour instead of the usual half an hour each?

Mr. Speaker: I can answer the hon. Gentleman very sympathetically. He will be aware that from time to time the Speaker makes appeals to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to keep their speeches reasonably brief. Many hon. Members respond to the appeal; some do not. I have no power, however, to change today's timetable.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: I beg to move,
That this House, while recognising the urgent need for economy in public expenditure, regrets the methods adopted by Her Majesty's Government in advising universities and local education authorities to increase fees for overseas students.
I will do my best, in view of the interchange just concluded, to make my arguments in support of the Motion as concise as possible, as many other hon. Members wish to take part in this highly important debate. I need not labour at all the storm of protest which has arisen at the Government's decision—protest throughout the academic world, from student to professor, protest mirrored again in a debate recently in the other place when, I think, not a single voice was raised on behalf of the Government's policy, and protest which will, I believe, be voiced this evening in the House of Commons.
No one can oppose our Motion unless he is genuinely satisfied both with the Government's policy and their purpose in these matters and with the methods that the Government have adopted. Unless hon. Members are satisfied both with the Government's purpose and with their methods, they cannot possibly oppose it.
The reasons given by the Government for their action are simply financial. This was stated clearly in another place and has been echoed in the House. They say


that there will be a saving, I think, starting at £2 million and rising to £5 million. I doubt that figure, and I want to know its basis. What assumption has the right hon. Gentleman made in putting forward this figure, first as to the effect of this move on the attendance of students at places of education in this country? We must have the figure from the Minister as to his assumption of the effect of these increases on students coming here.
Secondly, we must have the estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of the measures announced since then to mitigate hardship. My guess is that they do not amount to very much, but we must know because the impression given so far by the Government is that the concessions they have made are of a major character. In assessing this argument of the Government's for this move—namely, the financial argument—we must be given a clear picture of precisely on what basis these figures are founded.
A second financial argument of considerable importance runs in the contrary direction. It is the balance of payments argument. Surely our balance of payments represent our most urgent financial problem, and surely the number of students who come to this country represent an asset to Britain. They add to the invisible-plus side of the balance of payments, and I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give the calculation which the Government have made of the effect of this measure on the balance of payments. No responsible Government could take a step of this kind without having made that calculation. And if they have made it, they should give it to the House.
I believe that the saving, in terms of the Budget. to he made by this decision will he very small indeed, and that it will be more than counterbalanced by the loss on the balance of payments that will arise from the diversion of many students who would otherwise have come to this country. It is for this very small gain indeed that the Government have taken this action. It has caused a sense of outrage throughout academic circles, not only in this country but in many parts of the world, and among many friends of this country.
The size of the increases in the charge is, after all, very large indeed. It is all

very well for people to say that for students already here it is only £50. But in many of the countries from which these students come £50 is more than the total annual income of the average member of the population. This is, therefore, a very considerable sum—a swingeing increase—for many people, and the effect of it on the individuals concerned must surely be considered greatly to outweigh any gain that might be apparent to the taxpayers of this country.
The situation has been greatly aggravated by the manner of the announcement of this decision. The fact that it was announced in a Written Answer towards the end of term has caused great offence in wide circles. There appears to have been no proper consultation with the universities. Parliament has been told that the University Grants Committee was consulted, but we would like to know the nature of that consultation. Was there a meeting? What was done in advance? And was it consultation or merely information being given of a Government decision that had already been taken? Even if there were proper consultation, I do not believe that it can be considered to have been adequate consultation with the university world as a whole.
There has been an attempt by some Government spokesmen to argue that this measure is based on a recommendation of the Robbins Committee. That argument has been completely exploded, above all by Lord Robbins himself in another place, and I trust that we shall not hear that argument again.
I anticipate that when the Minister replies he will argue, first, the need for economy, and secondly, that the Government are applying the principle that care should be taken in spending the money which comes from the taxpayers' pocket—ensuring that it is given to those whose need can be established. We would accept both of those principles. We accept the need for economy in Government expenditure, and we have accepted that in the development of our social services more attention should be paid to concentrating aid from the taxpayer where it is most needed.
The party opposite has consistently taken the opposite view and has constantly opposed and criticised my hon. and right hon. Friends when we have said precisely that. But while we agree


with the principle of concentrating aid where it is most needed and ensuring that the taxpayers' money is spent only on people who need the taxpayers' aid, the Government have gone about it on this occasion in a cackhanded way. They have shown an incredible lack of a sense of priority. They have introduced this principle into one sphere involving severe discrimination indeed. They are not applying the principle effectively, because for many if not for the majority of people who need it help will not in practice be given.
On the question of priorities, we have heard the classic phrase that the language of priorities is the religion of Socialism. The late Aneurin Bevan used to use that phrase. However, in this case the party opposite has picked out, for the application of this principle of need, a small category of students who deserve well of this country, who will suffer severely from what is being done and whose sacrifice will, I believe, bring little commensurate benefit to the British taxpayer.
The application of this principle of need is apparently confined to one sphere only, and I do not believe that it will be applied in the case of, for example, people who come here and who use our National Health Service. Surely it will ring a little oddly in the ears of overseas students who must pay these largely increased charges—in many cases catastrophic increases for them. It will ring oddly in their ears when they are told that they are to be subjected to this measure because the principle of determining need must be applied in their case. It will ring oddly in their ears because they will see at the same time that prescriptions are wholly free to everyone, regardless of need and regardless of the vast expense involved. They will also see school milk bills going up, housing subsidies and everything else. They will see that the people of this country have the indiscriminate distribution of benefits, with subsidies going ahead, while they are being told—these overseas students—that they are to be discriminated against in this action by the Government. There is clear discrimination here, and this has probably done more to anger people than anything else.
Whatever help the Government propose, that help is not going to assist the majority of people who need it. They

are, the Government say, proposing to set up means of assisting individuals where hardship can be shown—that they will help people who come here with Government grants of one sort or another. But I believe that the majority of students do not come here on the shoulders of Governments, either this or their own. Many come here with the assistance of charitable organisations, and possibly the most deserving of all the students who come to this country are those who come as a result of their own families scraping the money together over a long period to ensure that the bright boy of the family can get the education they want him to have in Britain. Those are the students who will suffer the most, those are precisely the people who, so far as I can see, will get no help at all and who will have to bear the full burden of this increase. This is surely a proposition which is just not supportable in the House of Commons.
I said that I would be brief because a large number of hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I believe that there can be no more valuable a form of overseas aid than the provision of education. This is of particular value to overseas countries because, as we all know, the developing countries need not only technicians, administrators and teachers, but people who will go back to those countries to build up their own teaching organisations and so on. Nothing can be more valuable than aid given in the form of education. It is far better to train people to do their own jobs than to send out machinery or highly sophisticated modern equipment at enormous expense. Education is indeed a valuable form of aid. It is the type of aid which should be given top priority.
Aid in this form is also of considerable benefit to Britain, because it costs us nothing in foreign exchange and it means a great deal to our export trade. For the last couple of years I have done a great deal of travelling in different countries trying to sell British goods and services. I know from experience that nothing gives us greater advantage in this competitive world than meeting people who have been educated and trained in Britain, because they automatically look first to Britain for the goods they wish to buy and the help for which they want to pay. I cannot emphasise too strongly


that this form of aid is the best possible we can give and the one that costs us the least of all.
I sum up by saying that unless any hon. Member genuinely believes that he agrees with both the Government's objectives and their methods in this matter, he must support my hon. and right hon. Friends in the Division Lobby tonight. This measure has been carried out on the basis of a domestic financial saving which is wholly unproved as yet and which, if it exists, will probably be more than counterbalanced by the loss to our balance of payments. The whole matter has been handled in a totally inept fashion and without adequate consultation with
those most affected. Above all, the Government are introducing a degree of discrimination against those who, in most cases, are least equipped to look after themselves. It is for these reasons that I urge all hon. Members to support us in the Division to-night.

4.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has spoken with commendable brevity. I shall take slightly longer than he did, because in the last few weeks some millions of words of criticism have poured over my head and I want to take this opportunity to make a full reply on behalf of the Government.
This decision, which is being debated this afternoon, has aroused an exceptional amount of controversy, even though the party opposite has come into the argument rather late in the day. I have a great deal of sympathy with the idealistic motives which underlie much of the criticism, and with the concern which has been expressed about overseas aid, the principle of non-discrimination, and our responsibility for the developing countries. Yet I must also say that much of the criticism has been unrealistic, self-contradictory, and wholly unrelated to the facts; and some of the language used, even or, indeed, particularly, by eminent academics, has bordered on the hysterical. I shall try today to present a reasoned case, which I hope will convince the great majority of the critics.
The background to our decision was as follows. Educational spending has been rising, over the last three or four years, at a rate of about 5 per cent. a year. Despite this, we are under heavy pressure in the education service, partly because we all want higher standards, and partly for demographic reasons which mean that we shall have a million additional pupils in the schools between 1965 and 1971. So I am pressed at every Question Time, and rightly so, and by innumerable deputations, for still more educational spending—on Plowden, on nursery schools, more teachers, more school building, more for going comprehensive, more for industrial training, more for the universities, more for science and so on indefinitely.
In this situation, it is not in dispute that I should look for reasonable economies wherever they can be found, so that the most essential spending can go ahead unchecked. The question is: is this a reasonable economy? I believe that it is, and I shall try to explain why.
First, and this has been ignored in almost all the public discussion, it is customary to review university fees at the beginning of each quinquennium. They were last reviewed in 1962, when they were increased all round by 25 per cent. They were again due for review this year, before the beginning of the next quinquennium. So the Government had to take a decision on fees of one kind or another.
Secondly, the fee situation, given our peculiar and unique system of financing higher education, has grown increasingly farcical. For full-time and sandwich courses in advanced further education, the average fee is £40; the cost of the course, £600. For university education, the average fee is £70; the average cost of the course, including post-graduates, well over £800. Thus fees cover, on average, less than 10 per cent. of the cost of the course. The remaining 90 per cent. comes mainly as a general subsidy from public funds.
This situation—and this was the third argument for doing something—has come under increasing criticism in recent years. The Robbins Committee recommended that all fees should be raised to a point where they covered at least 20 per cent. of recurrent costs. The Select Committee


on Estimates endorsed this recommendation in the summer of 1965.
Both these Committees, although they recommended an all-round increase in fees, drew special attention to overseas students' fees. The Robbins Committee pointed out that these involved
… a substantial subsidy over which the nation has no control".
The Estimates Committee—whose Report, incidentally, was signed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), with a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House, said that fees for overseas students
… should be raised to a fairer level".

Mr. David Steel: rose—

Mr. Crosland: No, I shall not give way. It is not fair on other hon. Members who wish to speak.
Fourthly, the amount of this
…substantial subsidy over which the nation has no control"—
to quote Robbins—had grown dramatically in the last few years. This country is, I am glad to say, attractive to overseas students for many reasons of language, history and tradition; and successive Governments have rightly pursued an open-door policy. There has, in consequence, been a large increase in the numbers of overseas students. If we take the universities, 10 years ago there were 9,000; five years ago there were 13,000; last year there were over 16,000. There has been a comparable rise in the numbers in further education, and the total in both sectors is now well over 32,000. In fact, the total number of overseas students following courses of various kinds in this country is 71,000.
The result has been a large increase in the amount of the subsidy. So far as the universities are concerned, the subsidy to overseas students had risen from £3 million 10 years ago, to £6 million five years ago, to £12 million last year. In further education, where we do not have figures for 10 years ago, the increase was from £3 million five years ago to £6 million last year. So, in the last five years, the total subsidy rose from £10 million to £18 million—a rise of 80 per cent., compared with a rise in

our overall educational budget of just over 50 per cent. On plausible assumptions, the subsidy would have risen to £20 million next year, and perhaps to £25 million by the end of the decade.
And this, it has to be remembered, is a wholly indiscriminate subsidy. About 7,000 of the 32,000 overseas students who had nine-tenths of their fees subsidised from British public funds came from countries with a national income per head as high as or higher than our own—the United States, the old Dominions, Western Europe, Scandinavia; while certainly not all the students from the Middle East, from India, or from Pakistan came from poor families.
In the light of these considerations, and the heavy pressure on our educational budget, I do not know whether it is seriously suggested that the Government should have done nothing to bring this open-ended, indiscriminate, and rapidly-increasing subsidy under control. I should have thought that the case for doing something was irresistible. The Government considered, and rejected for reasons which I shall describe in a moment, an all-round increase in fees. But they decided that something must be done to limit the rate of increase in the subsidy to overseas students.
We could, of course, have reversed the open-door policy, and tried to impose some form of sub-rosa quota. But it seemed better and more honest to increase the fees. So we decided on an increase in fees designed to produce £2 million next year, and ultimately £5 million in a full year. Once taken, the decision was announced as quickly as possible, since universities and colleges begin to deal with applications for admission early in the new year. If we had delayed, candidates might have been accepted, and then found themselves faced with very much higher fees. So I announced the decision on 21st December, which was five days after the last date on which applications were required at the clearing house, but before any decisions on them were reached.
As to consultation, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, this was essentially a financial decision about the amount of support which the Government were willing to give to higher education. It would, therefore, not have been appropriate to consult at all widely, any more


than it would be with any other major decision on Government expenditure. But we did consult the University Grants Committee. It is not the practice to disclose the advice which the U.G.C. gives the Government, but I can say that we would not have taken a step of this kind if the U.G.C. had advised against it in principle.
The figures of students affected are by now fairly well known. Out of 71,000 overseas students, 39,000 are in institutions which will not be affected at all. Of the remaining 32,000 who will be affected, about a quarter come from developed countries. The rest—24,000—come from developing countries. Of these, about 2,500 are students on British Government or British Council grants, and these will be unaffected both now and in the future since the higher fees will be paid by the British Government out of an increase in overseas aid funds. In addition, there are about 6,000 students on grants from the Governments of developing countries, and in their case, so far as students already embarked on a course are concerned, the increase of £50 will be reimbursed out of a special Government fund.
This leaves some 16,000 students from developing countries who are not financed in these ways. Not all of them, of course—and I must insist on this in view of the things which have been said—are by any means poor. Nevertheless, I said from the start that there might be some residual hardship. The sort of cases we all have in mind are the unsponsored students, already embarked on courses, who have to rely on their families, their villages, or their own earnings for their finance. I received some evidence of this when, with my hon. friends the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, I met the National Union of Students and the Scottish Union of Students on 8th February.
In the light of the evidence which I have heard, I have decided that there are two ways in which we should help. First, I intend to ensure that students already embarked on a sequence of courses—for example, A levels to be followed by an undergraduate course—should not have to curtail their studies by being faced with a large increase in fee when they move from one course to the next. I do not

want to give the exact definitions today, as I want to consult the appropriate authorities. But I intend the result to be that few students already in this country will be called upon to pay more than an increase of £50 a year.
Secondly, as I announced last week, I propose to set up a transitional fund to enable grants to be made towards the increased fees in cases where hardships can reasonably be claimed. This is directed mainly towards the needs of unsponsored students from developing countries. I now intend to draft a memorandum of guidance which I shall discuss with the local authorities, the universities, and other interests involved. We can debate the details in due course, since the fund will be the subject of a Supplementary Estimate. Our objective is that no existing overseas student should have to give up his studies simply because he cannot find the extra £50.
These are the short-term easements which we propose to meet the position of students already in this country. I also intend, in consultation with the Minister of Overseas Development and in collaboration with the universities, the local authorities, and other interests concerned, to keep the long-term situation under review.
I hope that these various easements, while they will leave the greater part of the savings intact, will satisfy those who have been particularly concerned with unsponsored students from the developing countries.
I must turn to the two major criticisms of principle which have been made of the Government's decision. They are mutually inconsistent, though this has not prevented a lot of the critics from using them both at the same time.
The first criticism is that what is wrong with our decision was not that we put up overseas students' fees, but only that we failed simultaneously to put up British students' fees. This was the criticism of Lord Robbins, who made it clear, as had his Committee, that he strongly favoured a rise in overseas students' fees provided only that other fees also rose.
This is the only criticism open to members of the Estimates Committee, who—and they included the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Handsworth—also proposed an increase in both overseas


students' and British students' fees. And it is the only criticism open to a considerable number of vice-chancellors, who have proposed that the standard fee for all students, home and overseas, should be substantially raised.
I call this the vice-chancellors' criticism. Incidentally, while it must be a pleasant change for the vice-chancellors to be able to earn, for once, the plaudits of the National Union of Students, I wonder just how many of the students realise that what the vice-chancellors are proposing is a general increase in all fees at home and overseas. There might be less amity if they realised this.
This criticism objects not to the principle of raising overseas students' fees, but only to the fact that it was done in an allegedly discriminatory manner. These critics cannot, in other words, complain that the higher fees will have damaging effects on the number of overseas students, our export trade, the developing countries, or whatever it may be, because they also, in a different context, wanted higher fees. In fact, a lot of them do so complain. Indeed with the notable exception of Lord Robbins, whose logic at least is impeccable, almost all the speakers in last week's debate in another place did so complain.
Some prominent vice-chancellors have been equally inconsistent. In fact, some of those who in the past have been the most vociferous in supporting an all-round rise in fees, like Sir Douglas Logan, are now the first to point out the disastrous effects which the higher overseas fees will have.
As to the alleged discrimination, I want to be clear about one thing. Whatever it is, it does not involve nationality, race, birth or origin; and those who suggest that it does are doing a profound disservice to the cause which they support. The increased fees will apply to students who have come into higher education in Britain after less than three years residence here. Within this definition, the details of which I shall be discussing, we make no distinction, and shall make no distinction between black and white, between Asian and European, between African and North American. I hope I have made that finally and totally clear.
So no element of race or nationality comes into this. But, apart from that,

is it really true that we are creating a new and unprecedented distinction between British and overseas students? As a matter of logic, it certainly is not true. There was already discrimination long before we took this decision. British students for the most part do not pay their own fees, which are met out of British public funds. Overseas students, on the other hand, for the most part do pay their own fees; and indeed they are the only students that do. So the discrimination already existed. It would not have disappeared if we had put up the fees all round, as many vice-chancellors proposed.
Virtually every British student would have had the higher fee automatically met from public funds; the overseas student, except for those whom we are cushioning, would have paid the higher fee himself. The one would be financially unaffected, the other would pay the increase. There might have been a greater appearance of equity, but it would have been a fake, a charade, a piece of window-dressing. It might have satisfied the vice-chancellors and Lord Robbins; I cannot believe it would for long have deceived the overseas students.
So much for the logic of the discrimination argument. I do not want to rely wholly on logic. We are discussing a matter in which sentiment and emotion play a large part. Let us forget the logic, and ask whether we should simultaneously have raised the fees for British students, so as to avoid even the appearance of discrimination? Could we, in fact, have done this in 1967, quite apart from the merits, on which people are divided? In my view we could not have done this.
The greater part of the fees of British students, over 95 per cent. of the fees of undergraduates, are paid out of local authority awards. So if we increased these fees, while the Government would save money on the quinquennial grant, the local authorities would have to find more money. In other words, we should simply be transferring expenditure from central government to local government—just at a moment when we are trying to limit the rate burden.
The critics say we could adjust the rate support grant to local authorities to cover the higher fees. I hope I shall not bore the House, but I must answer this point rather exactly, since various


people have quoted the Treasury's evidence to the Robbins Committee.
By last December, the rate support grant for 1967–68 and 1968–69 had already been settled. It could, of course, have been reopened to cover an increase in fees, but only on the existing formula. Under this formula the extra cost, like the original cost, is shared between ratepayer and taxpayer, with the ratepayer finding about 45 per cent. If we had increased all British university students' fees to the point where they met the 20 per cent. of recurrent cost proposed by Robbins and the Estimates Committee, this would have meant over £8 million on the rates, or about Id. in the £.
For comparison, the Government's proposed relief to the domestic ratepayer under the Local Government Act will provide relief amounting to 5d. in the £ each year. So a general increase to the Robbins figure would have wiped out 20 per cent. of this relief, quite apart from being inequitable between one local authority and another.
So this, in my view, was not a serious proposition. However, it is true that it would be technically possible by legislation to make a specific 100 per cent. grant which would avoid any extra burden on the rates; and this is no doubt what the Treasury witnesses to Robbins had in mind. But this would be subject to major drawbacks.
First, it would not be possible, either in principle or in practice, to confine the special 100 per cent. grant to the increase in fees, while paying only the normal lower percentage grant on existing fee expenditure. The whole fee expenditure would inevitably have to be treated as one and receive 100 per cent. Exchequer grant.
Second, and much more important, the Government would then be departing from the basic principle laid down in the recent Local Government Act, namely, that, with rare exceptions—such as cost protection—where the burden falls only on a few authorities, Exchequer assistance to local authorities should take the form of a general grant in aid of the rates.
I hope that nobody thinks that these arguments are unduly theoretical. If anybody does, I should add that when the possibility of a general rise in fees

was raised, informally and without commitment, with the local authority associations, they replied that they were against any increase in British students' fees and would be strongly opposed to any substantial increase. Their view was clearly expressed by Sir William Alexander in Education, the journal of the Association of Education Committees, on 10th February when he wrote—and was the first person to do so—
It is difficult to argue against the decision which the Secretary of State has made.
It would not have been possible to put up all fees in what is described as a non-discriminatory manner.
I now turn to the second major criticism, which is, of course, quite inconsistent with the first, namely, that the increase in overseas students' fees was wrong in principle, whether or not it was accompanied by any increase in British students' fees—wrong because it would drastically reduce the number of overseas students coming to Britain; and this would be bad for Britain and bad for the developing countries.
Now part of this argument is pure self-interest. It is said, for example, that among the post-graduate students who may be excluded by the higher fees could be the next Lord Florey from Australia, or the next Lord Rutherford from New Zealand. This is an absurd argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the reason which I am about to give. In the year in which Lord Florey came to this country, the number of overseas students in British universities was 3,800. Last year, it was over 16,000, and that takes no account of another 16,000 in the technical colleges. So our chances of receiving new Floreys or Rutherfords have been rather high in recent years, and will remain exceedingly high whatever the level of fees.
I take much more seriously the argument that the higher fees may damage the developing countries: that they will deny students from Africa and Asia an education which they cannot find in their own countries, but which they desperately need both for their own sakes and for the sake of their emergent nations.
Now, in fact, there are two views, as we saw last week, about how far it benefits the developing nations to send large numbers of students to Britain, in view of the fact that once here they often stay


here, or go to some other country which is even more well-off. We discussed this in the House last week in connection with the brain drain, when a number of hon. Members—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody)—pointed out that the really tragic brain drain was from the underdeveloped countries to the wealthy countries.
For example, in the summer of 1965, out of approximately 1,500 overseas students who took post-graduate degrees in this country, 1,000 returned to their own countries, while the rest either stayed here or went to some other country. In the United States, as Professor Brinley Thomas has pointed out in a recent article,
Of Iran's 6,000 students in America, only about 50 per cent. are returning. The same seems to be true of students from countries such as India, Korea, Egypt, Pakistan, Greece, Colombia and Jordan.
But I do not want to make too much of this argument, serious though I think it is, because it might seem paternalistic. It is, after all, up to the developing countries themselves to decide what is in their interests, and in any case this argument played no part in our decision.
But I must answer the criticism that I am callously denying large numbers of Asian or African students an education which they cannot find in their own countries. This criticism assumes two things, neither of which I accept. First, it assumes that large numbers of students will be deterred by the higher fees from coming here. I doubt this. In recent years, the number of applications from overseas has considerably exceeded the number of available places. We have to remember that the fee is only a proportion of the cost of coming here. The overseas student must find the fare. He must find, on British Council calculations, an average of about £600 a year for the cost of living here, exclusive of the fee—though I fully accept that some students are living on less.
An increase of £50 in the fee for those already here, and even £180 for future students, may therefore not reduce the numbers by anything like the amount that some critics have suggested. There is no historical evidence that changes in the fee level greatly alter the flow of students. At any rate, I estimate that the saving will come mainly not from

a large reduction in the number of students, but from the higher fee paid by continuing high numbers. But, supposing I am wrong and there is a substantial reduction, will this deprive large numbers of overseas students of an education which they could not otherwise obtain?
I am not sure that all hon. Members realise how great a change has occurred in recent years, or how many of the developing countries now have their own universities, often created with our support. The Vice-Chancellor of Sussex, who is one of our greatest authorities on these matters, has recently reminded us that in 1946, in the whole of our colonial and former colonial territories, there were only two small university institutions. But today, in Africa alone, and speaking only of our former colonial territories, there are some 20 universities or university colleges, and in South-East Asia, the Far East and the Caribbean, at least another 10. These have been largely built, I am glad to say, with British capital and staffed from British universities.
As a result, as Lord Fulton pointed out, undergraduate education is becoming available to increasing numbers of young people in their own countries. Today, accordingly, there is less need to offer undergraduate places here, except for particular subjects and particular territories, where there are as yet no university institutions. We are very conscious of these exceptions—for example, countries such as Cyprus and Mauritius—and we shall bear them specially in mind in working out our cushioning devices.
But—and I must make these points because they have not yet appeared in any of the public discussions—it is not only that many of the developing countries now have their own universities. It is also that many of these universities have empty places. I mention this not to justify our decision, which was not taken on these grounds, but to rebut one of the most common arguments used against it.
Hon. Members may have seen a letter to the Observer recently, written by a Professor at Fourah Bay College in Sierra Leone—a college which some hon. Members will know. I would like to quote part of this letter:—
There exist throughout Africa good universities which have been largely built and


equipped from outside funds. Most departments in these universities suffer from an acute shortage of good students.
Many university departments in Africa could double or treble their intake.
I am convinced that the only way to strengthen African universities is…to encourage Africans to utilise their own excellent institutions. I would, of course, make an exception in the case of highly specialised subjects that cannot be taught in Africa, but these are few.
This may be an exceptional case, but it is not unique. I had a letter recently from one of our most famous academics, a Fellow of the Royal Society. I would like to quote some sentences from it:—
I believe that undergraduate or F.E. students should take their 1st degrees at their home Universities in developing countries, and that the important role for Britain is to take the post graduate students for whom there are no home based facilities.
I visited the University of Ghana in December, and was told that they are extremely short of scientists and mathematicians in their intake. The staff numbers are such that they could easily quadruple the number of science students they can teach.
So, while there are exceptions which I have mentioned, it is clear that our role should increasingly he to provide postgraduate facilities. It is these which are conspicuously lacking in the developing countries; and we have a clear duty to provide them until those countries can build up their own post-graduate schools. But this is precisely what we are doing and shall continue to do. Of the overseas students from developing countries now in Britain, some 5,000 are post-graduates. These are the students who are least likely to suffer from the higher fees. Some 80 per cent. of the students on British Government grants, whose fees will be fully made up, are post-graduates; and overseas Governments typically give preference to postgraduates. So the category which everybody thinks the most important is the category least likely to be affected by the higher fees.
So for all these reasons and bearing in mind the concessions which I have announced, I cannot accept that we are harming the developing countries. The only thing which I ask of critics this afternoon is that they should declare which lire of criticism they are making and not try to have it both ways. They must either say, like Lord Robbins and the Vice-Chancellors, that they would

have been willing to have increased overseas students' fees, if only British students' fees had been raised at the same time. In that case, they cannot talk about the damage which the higher fees might do to the developing countries or whatever it might be, since their own policy would have led to the same result. And they must explain to the House how they would have raised home students' fees in the context of the rate support grant.
If, on the other hand, they are opposed to higher overseas fees in principle, whether or not accompanied by higher British fees, then they can talk about the damage which the higher fees might do. But then they must answer this question. Do they regard the present level of overseas students' fees as sacrosanct? It was, after all, increased by 25 per cent. in 1962, and might well have been increased again this year as part of the normal quinquennial review.
Is there any point at which they would have brought this open-ended subsidy under control? It had risen by 80 per cent. over the last five years; we estimate that it would have risen by a further 40 per cent. by 1970. In the light of this, and what Robbins and the Estimates Committee said, would they simply have sat back and done nothing? They really must tell the House whether, how, and when they would have introduced some logic into this situation.
And they must really keep their criticism in perspective. I have been profoundly shocked by the near-hysterical reaction of some of the university critics. The Vice-Chancellor of Manchester said:
this is an evil decision; what is at stake is our idea of the university".
The Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield said it
would affect Britain's position as a world leader in advanced education.
The Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool called it
inhuman, foolish and autocratic.
Others have spoken of our returning to the Middle Ages. Incidentally, no one would guess, listening to these papal edicts, that the vice-chancellors were strongly in favour of increasing all students' fees, for overseas as well as home students.
I do not mind being called a Fascist by the students, if only because I can


remember shouting "Fascist" at Lord Attlee when I was a student. At least it seems to have done him no permanent harm. But this sort of intemperate language from the senior common-room is really not helpful. It is simply not related to the real world. In the real world, the number of overseas students in British universities is nearly double what it was 10 years ago, and four times what it was before the war.
In the real world, Britain has an exceptionally high proportion of overseas students, higher than almost any other European country, and will continue to be highly attractive to students from overseas. In the real world, we have cushioned the higher fees in the various crucial ways which I have mentioned. In the real world, the fees will still cover on average only one-third of the cost of higher education; most of the remaining two-thirds will be a subsidy from public funds. And in the real world, even after the increase, the total subsidy, which was £10 million five years ago, will probably be £18 million next year, and could easily rise to £20 million by 1970. This makes total nonsense of the wild language used by these eminent academic leaders.
Of course I have a responsibility to overseas students. But I have other responsibilities as well—to slum and handicapped children in Britain and, if we are talking of people from overseas, to immigrant children in Sparkbrook and Southall. I hope in this context that no hon. Member will argue that £2 million or ₣5 million is chicken-feed or a trivial sum. It would build a host of new nursery or infant schools in Plowden areas.
So, since Socialism is said to be about priorities, I thought it right to strike a balance, and not to continue to pay an indiscriminate subsidy of 90 per cent. to all overseas students, rich or poor, from America or Nigeria.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: rose—

Mr. Crosland: I shall not give way because so many of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
I thought the right balance was not to make a savage cut in the subsidy, but to bring it under control, to limit its

rate of increase, and to align it more clearly with overseas aid policy.
No financial economy is agreeable; and we took this decision reluctantly. But despite all the volume of criticism, I am still convinced it was a reasonable decision, and I commend it to the House.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Richard Hornby: After listening to the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the emotional language which has come from senior common rooms one cannot help wondering what his views on this Measure would have been a few years ago when he himself was in one of those common rooms.
In his speech the Minister has given us a great deal more of the background to this decision. I do not think any of us would pretend that this is an easy matter. It is a complicated matter in terms of the finances of British universities and also in terms of taking the right decisions for British aid and in terms of the relationship between British education and the education of overseas countries. This needs careful and delicate handling. It needs careful handling because of the complications involved and delicate handling because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is an emotional issue and feelings about it get loudly expressed and widely reported and can do damage in a very sensitive area.
My plea to the right hon. Gentleman and my criticism of his handling of this matter is that it bears all the signs of having been a hurriedly chosen economy, all the signs—in fact we know it was—of being a policy announced in a whisper. Therefore, the criticism of it gathered speed and began to have a widespread effect long before the facts of the situation were made known by the right hon. Gentleman. In that he made a serious error in handling the situation. Only now some of the ground on which he has based his decision is becoming known. Hitherto the argument made by the Leader of the House in another place was that it was a purely financial decision. On a subsequent occasion the right hon. Gentleman said, and he made it part of his argument today, that it also had beneficial effects for education in developing countries overseas.

Mr. Crosland: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but this is most important. I never tried to give the impression that that was one of the reasons for the decision. I was trying to rebut the argument that it would have a damaging effect.

Mr. Hornby: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but if he has to rebut that argument it emphasises some of the doubts which existed in people's minds about the reasons for this Measure.
I declare my position quite clearly. I shall make three points and I want to be as brief as possible. My first point is that, so far as I have been able to work it out, I would not have objected to the overall raising of all student fees. I recognise the problems of university finance. I believe that the arguments for a greater proportion of their finances coming from sources other than direct from the U.G.C. are valid and, having read what Lord Robbins said about the Treasury evidence on this matter, I am not convinced that we could not make it possible to produce those sources of finance without a load going straight on to the rates.
As the right hon. Gentleman quite properly admits one is faced with the problem of having to accept that this would have meant some discrimination. That may be so but, if it were to be so, surely before taking what is in fact a discriminatory decision let us explain in which areas we want to discriminate. My objection is that this announcement was made without any appearance of a coherent policy for our relations with overseas students, by the linking of the new policy with the aid programme so that we could compensate some of the students involved.
We can cover those coming on a Government basis and cope with them through the aid programme. We can cover also some of the burden falling, as the right hon. Gentleman explained, on those already here. There are, however, a great many others. They may be coming from developed countries; in which case have we heard anything about reciprocal arrangements of this kind and whether such things can be negotiated? Is this not something we should have discussed and looked at as we have done in the case of many other social services?
Another category of students are those who are coming here under their own steam as best they can from developing countries. In which institutions have we room for them, or which of those do we feel that we want to help without doing any damage to institutions in their own countries? Is not this again something which should have been considered and presented as part of a coherent policy?
The remaining point I want to make is a financial one. The Secretary of State said that he would save initially £2 million rising to £5 million and that the figures, because of the growing appetite for education, may go on rising. How much in fact will he save by this measure? There is a counter-balancing flow of money coming in, as my right hon. Friend said. This is very difficult to measure, but I believe that there are substantial subsequent benefits for the British economy because of the many contacts developed, especially in the technical field. This is not a negligible aspect.
We are concerned with a major chunk of overseas aid, both on current account and in the capital equipment which is used. My own view is that educational aid is probably about the most effective of all types of aid. This is not a newly-found view which I have espoused because the Government have introduced this measure. In 1962, when the Robbins Committee was taking evidence, I myself, with one of the present Ministers of State for Foreign Affairs, led a deputation to give evidence to that Committee and argued the point for a substantial chunk of facilities and places remaining available in higher education to overseas students. We argued it because, first, we thought that this was an important international presence in institutions of higher education. We argued it, secondly, because we felt that by doing this we were serving the needs of developing countries in particular who needed our help. We argued the case, thirdly, from the purely self-interested aspect that this was good long-term for Britain.
I believe now, more than ever, that it is good long term for Britain that these students should continue to come, because we are trying to feel our way and to understand what it means to be a medium-sized Power which wishes to exert influence and to play a proper part in the world. We can do this only if we stand


for what we are, a country with many highly developed educational and industrial aspects of our life which is anxious to play a full role in the scientific revolutions of today and in helping developing countries. I personally believe that we could show our sincerity in our desire to play this role by continuing to allow overseas students to come.
I personally believe that they will come in much fewer numbers, unless we can think much more clearly about what we are trying to do, because we are the second most expensive country in the world for many of these students. They have plenty of choices from many other countries. We cannot accept an open-ended policy, but within limits we must try to make is possible for most of them to come. I believe that this policy should have been much more carefully thought out and presented, and that it will not yield the economies the Secretary of State suggests but will do damage to British reputation and influence abroad.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I declare my interest in today's debate; the reasons why I have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker? In a life of varied activity, I have held two posts of very different but, for today's purpose, related, kinds. For a period of years I held a professorial chair in the university of London. For a similar period of years I held the office of Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
A large proportion of my pupils in London were from overseas—young men and women from the old Dominions, from Africa, from Asia, from Europe and from the United States. Still, today, from time to time, I meet them. A very large proportion of them have risen to eminence in the national life of their respective countries, due, no doubt, to my tuition. They have risen to eminence in politics, in the judiciary, in education, in their civil services, in diplomacy, in business life.
The Government are now engaged in a battle to restore the solvency of Britain by securing equilibrium in our balance of trade. It is not a short-term problem. It is a long-term problem. For many years, exports and re-exports will be of supreme importance to us all.
I venture the assertion that, of all the re-exports that we make, incomparably the most significant and the most valuable, over the last 50 years, have been these young men and women who come here and go back with the incomparable training which our universities have given to them. The value of their training here has repaid itself to us in various ways—political, cultural, economic and financial.
May I give three examples of men whom I could call my friends. The late Prime Minister of India, Mr. Nehru, spent the same four years at Cambridge that I spent there. He rendered an incalculable service to India, to Britain and to the world, when, after 30 years' struggle, he brought India to self-government and independence, without any bloodshed, except the short and lamentable episode at Amritsar many years ago. Is it conceivable that Mr. Nehru could have been able to do that, if he had not understood the British character and British thinking, if he had not had British friends in every walk of life?
Liaquat Ali Khan was a great Prime Minister of Pakistan, a great friend of the Commonwealth. He played a part in the partition of India, for which we and the world owed him a great debt of gratitude. He could not have played that part had he not lived through his university life in Britain.
The present Prime Minister of Ceylon, Mr. Dudley Senanayake, is a Cambridge man. In his first Cabinet he had seven other Cambridge men. I am sorry to say that it lasted only a few months. But he is now back in power and he is guiding Ceylon, to the great benefit of our true British national interest, towards prosperity and progress, with the same kind of Parliamentary democracy that we have here.
The Government's plan, however the Secretary of State may describe it, will keep out of this country a large number of overseas students who otherwise would come, and who can tell if some of them may be men of the calibre of Nehru, Liaquat and Senanayake, of whom I have spoken.

Mr. Robert Howarth: I have the highest respect for my right


hon. Friend, but are not the three examples he has used rather unfortunate ones in this context, in that they happen to come from families who were quite rich enough to send those children over here? This is one of the telling points against the argument he is deploying, that many of the students from developing countries do come from middle-class families.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have the highest regard for my hon. Friend's opinion, but I would say that he is precisely and completely wrong. What I am arguing is that it is the poorer people who will be kept out. I do not concede that the able, the exceptional, the Nehru-type man, comes only from the richer classes. He comes from the poorer classes, too.
May I now, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth), follow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the second argument that he used? We are today giving 1 per cent. of our national income for economic aid to overseas countries. I hope that it may soon be 2 per cent. At present, it amounts to nearly £250 million a year. This aid is given to make these countries prosperous, to increase their wealth, to make them economically independent. It is our major national interest that it shall succeed.
The other day, the United States Census Bureau published figures showing that for any country in the world the gross national product is in exact relation to its investment in education. I believe that our cutting of this form of aid is a supreme example of what I regard as the unwisdom of trying to save a ha'p'orth of tar.
I listened to the Secretary of State, as I always do, with great respect. I should have liked him to compare the economies he is making with the £20 million we are to spend this year on civil defence, and to ask which would the more increase the real strength of Britain. My right hon. Friend made a most persuasive speech. I admit the validity of many of the arguments he used. But I am certain that this decision is not his. It was forced upon him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a great defeat, and I hope that our debate this afternoon will put it right.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: I should be the last to call the Secretary of State a Fascist, but wondered at one time whether he was putting in a bid for the Governorship of California in the action he has taken on this question.
I add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in complaining about the lack of consultation and notice on this decision. There was the quiet surreptitious Written Answer on 21st December last, which, as the Secretary of State was generous enough to acknowledge, came five days after the closing date for applications coming into the Central Council. In my view, it smacks somewhat of a breach of faith that, five days after the closing date for applications, the price is suddenly bumped up.
The Secretary of State spoke rather as though 1967 had come upon him suddenly, as though the Government had not realised that the quinquennium was starting and a decision had to be made about fees. He found no difficulty in raising informally and without commitment with the local government associations the question of raising fees, yet he did not find it possible to raise informally and without commitment this other question with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors or any student or other university body, apart from the University Grants Committee.
This lack of consultation smacks of interference from outside the Department of Education and Science and of the decision having been forced upon the Secretary of State. The lack of consultation on this issue compares rather unfavourably with the fanfare of trumpets which accompanied the dinner to which the vice-chancellors were entertained by the Prime Minister shortly after his taking office, when the vice-chancellors were invited in, wined and dined, and told how important they were and how crucial their role was in the life of the country.
When a decision is taken on a matter such as this which vitally concerns the vice-chancellors, however, they are not even consulted beforehand. I gather that the Prime Minister has now brushed


them off and refused to receive a delegation of vice-chancellors, passing them on to the Secretary of State, who has brushed them off today as a hysterical bunch. It does not seem to me that the vice-chancellors will get very much joy out of the Secretary of State. That is the first complaint—no consultation and lack of notice.
I do not know—I am not clear in my own mind—what the Government's purpose is in taking this action, whether it is, as the Secretary of State seemed to suggest in his speech at the School of African and Oriental Studies, and as he suggested in part today, that large numbers of students will be kept in their own countries and not come here, or whether it is, as his hon. Friend suggested in the Adjournment debate the other day, that we still want as many students as possible to come to this country, maintaining the present numbers and getting more money out of them. I am not sure which side the Secretary of State came down on today, because at different points in his speech he seemed to be riding the two different horses.
Judging from the debate in the other place, the Government have made no assessment yet of the likely impact of their decision upon the number of students coming to this country. We have heard calculations from people involved in this matter, on the one side, that there will be a reduction of about 8,000 coming over the next two years and that the number will decrease, particularly among the poorest and those coming from the developing countries, and, on the other hand, it is said that there would be no impact at all. Both assessments have been made by responsible people actively involved in this work. We ought to have an assessment from the Government indicating their idea of the likely impact of the action which they have announced.
The Secretary of State was at pains to talk about the purpose of cutting down what he called the open-ended commitment. To an extent, however, it is still an open-ended commitment. There are no physical controls put upon it. The level of fees has been raised, but no lid has been put on, so to that extent it is still open-ended, although action has been taken in the short term to raise the money we shall receive in fees from overseas students.
The Government have chosen a clumsy and crude way of imposing a control. It is a discriminatory act, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge said, discriminatory in the wrong way in that it does not discriminate in favour of the needy. It discriminates against students simply because they come from overseas.
The right hon. Gentleman spent a lot of time explaining the inconsistency between the two arguments, the one which says that all fees should be raised, the other that overseas students' fees should not be raised. The Robbins Report suggested that all fees should be raised and that the additional income should be used for a fund to aid needy students from overseas. In that way, both arguments can be applied, and they cease to be contradictory in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. Moreover, there is a difference in kind, not simply of degree, between raising fees by 25 per cent. and raising them by 300 per cent., as the Government have done without notice.
Now, a word about students already in this country, the ones who would pay the £50. We are to have a fund to reimburse those who come from developing countries. We are to have a fund to help students who are in actual hardship. I gather that the total amount we hope to get out of the £50 is, at the most, likely to be £1 million, and, with the two funds taken together, it will be very much less than that.
As these students have come to this country on the basis of the old fees, is there not a breach of faith here? Would it not be best to abandon the idea of the £50 impost at least on students already involved in courses in this country? For the pittance it would bring in, this is something which the Secretary of State could quite easily abandon.
Now, what about the charities, trusts and foundations which support students in this country? The Government's action will hit particularly hard one category not mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge, those whom I call the dissenting students, the refugee student, the student at odds with the Government of his own country, the student who is supported here by charitable organisations, trusts and funds. If those charities have to find treble the amount for the fees they will be able to support only one-third the number of


students they previously supported, unless they can increase their fund-raising. The Government have already hit charities, first by the tax loan—the Selective Employment Tax—and secondly by action over Christmas cards Purchase Tax.
We shall get a smaller number of dissenting students, whether refugee students or those who are here when there is perhaps a coup in their own country and their grant is cut off in the middle of their course. Those are the students who are aided by charities, and the charities will be very hard hit by the Government's action. I hope that the Government will examine the matter and see whether anything can be done to help the dissenting students.
The Government's action hits at the whole concept of the international character of education. The noble Lord who summed up for the Government in another place said that charity begins at home. It was a pagan who first said that charity begins at home, and I should have thought that we might have moved on a little from that concept today.
The Government's action has aroused universal condemnation in the academic world and among people who are interested in aid to developing countries. When he started on this move, the Secretary of State called in aid the Robbins Report, although I think that he has now retracted. I want to call in aid of my argument a passage from the Report which says:
The presence here in institutions of higher education of students from abroad is widely regarded as valuable, and rightly so. In our judgment it fosters a sense of international community on both sides which encourages a valuable give and take. The communications to which it gives rise are not without their diplomatic and economic advantages, and where students from developing countries are concerned it provides a helpful contribution to their countries' advances. We should greatly regret a dwindling in the number of overseas students.
I believe that the Government's action will lead to a dwindling of that number. I regret it, and for that reason I shall vote for the Motion.

5.32 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science

made a very persuasive and effective speech. I do not consider that the level of overseas students' fees is sacrosanct, but when many of the developing countries need more help from us than ever before it is perhaps, to say the least, unfortunate that this step should have been taken now. The sum of £50 a year has been mentioned as the total increase some students will pay. My right hon. Friend will be aware that in some parts of the Commonwealth, such as India and Pakistan, £1 per week is not an uncommon wage for a working man.
I am not a party to wild accusations of vice-chancellors, and I am not against increases as such. I do not think that all higher education should necessarily be subsidised to a higher degree. What I am concerned about is that subtleties of policy develop from little things, and this is a very little thing. Not much money is being saved by it, but it means a lot to some of the people affected.
I very much appreciate the Government's point of view on the matter. It may be fair enough for the advanced countries but I am concerned about the under-developed countries and underprivileged sections in advanced countries. I am concerned about South Africa. I have received a letter, from which I should like to quote briefly:
I am a student from South Africa. I receive no grant. I am solely dependent upon my parents, who are financing my education at very great sacrifice and are barely able to support me.
I should also like to quote a letter from another South African student:
I can go to a tribal college for Indians. They are merely glorified high schools allowing no academic or intellectual freedom, and if you are aware of the facts of life in South Africa you are able to judge that this is no exaggeration.
I believe that I am aware of the facts of life in South Africa. The letter goes on:
Students from Commonwealth countries can expect some help, but South Africa left the Commonwealth several years ago, a matter in which non-whites had no say.
That gives me great concern.
Countries like Australia and New Zealand from which we have students are rich, and I have no objection to an increase in the fees paid by students from those countries or from the United States. I am concerned about victims of


cruel, oppressive policy in their own countries, who look upon this country as a bastion of freedom and a place of great intellectual choice. We should not disappoint and disillusion them completely.
It might be apposite to mention my own experience as a student. Before the war I went on a tour of Europe, which my parents considered an essential part of my education. Among other places, I spent some time in Vienna and Budapest. With 250,000 Jewish inhabitants, almost 25 per cent. of the population, Budapest imposed a 5 per cent. limit on Jewish entrants to her university. Many applied for places elsewhere and were accepted. They went to the United Kingdom and United States, and some went to Vienna. Less than one year later Vienna fell.
That was a piece of discrimination, and we are now discriminating. If the policy of discrimination had been universal, the world might have lost as Nobel prize-winners, in medicine and physiology alone, Koch, in 1905, Ehrlich, in 1908, Lippman, in 1953, and Bloch, in 1964; in physics, Einstein, in 1921, and Stern, in 1943; in literature, Thomas Mann, in 1929, and Pasternak, in 1958; not to mention prize-winners in chemistry and peace.
Why must we, for very small sums of money, appear to succumb so readily to the blandishments of the forces of darkness? When my right hon. Friend said that millions of words of controversy have poured over his head we plead that some of them get into his ears and that he listens to the arguments put forward to safeguard those for whom I speak.
The Government must not appear to discriminate. It is not enough to say that it is not discrimination; I quite accept that. I do not call my right hon. Friend a Fascist, nor do I call him an individual who would in any way discriminate. But it is not enough for me to know that. Everybody in the outside world must know it too. I am asking my right hon. Friend to give me assurances that students from underdeveloped countries whose parents cannot afford even the small amounts of money by which the fees are to be increased and students from the underprivileged sections of even developed countries, will not suffer. I want him if

it is possible to spell out in much more detail the specifications of the transitional fund to be set up. I want to know much more about how it is to be administered and about phrases used—for example,
…in cases where hardship can reasonably be claimed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st February, 1967; Vol. 741, c. 248.]
We want to be more specific and if he can give these assurances he will be assuring everyone that discrimination on grounds of colour and race is indeed not taking place.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: The Secretary of State presented a clear and logical argument. He is well known for rhetoric on paper and he gave a piece of it in his speech. I shall not disagree with him. Indeed, I agree with a great deal of what he said. I have always believed that one should know what things cost and that, particularly when one is giving things free, one should know what they cost. Otherwise, one is led into a large number of stupid and uneconomic political decisions.
When I was a servant of a local authority in a developing country, there was an anomaly in that we were paying a student's fee of £600 at Oxford but £900 at Makerere College in Uganda. There was something rather stupid in that. One should have some idea of what education at Oxbridge or Redbrick costs in this country. We are, after all, giving something that is not only of inestimable value academically but very costly as well.
But, because the right hon. Gentleman's arguments are reasonable, the way in which he made his announcement becomes all the more unreasonable. If his argument had been put forward properly and clearly at the right time there would have been none of the outcry there is today. He said that some of the argument had not been heard before. But he made his announcement two months ago. Why did he not make a clear statement at the time? We all know that, if a Minister wants to hide something, he can give a Written Reply a few days before Christmas. This announcement was made, too, at the beginning of the university vacation.
The sum of £50 may not seem much to hon. Members, particularly since we


so often talk in terms of millions, but it is a great deal of money to an undergraduate who is not used to using large sums of money. This particularly applies to students who are thousands of miles from home and who are not altogether certain where next year's fees will come from. The money may come from village communities, from their parents, perhaps from collections among their relations who have to be chivvied for each year's fees.
Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the amount of anxiety he caused by his half-baked announcement among overseas visitors who are also students in our universities? Vice-chancellors are neither stupid nor hysterical men. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the statements of vice-chancellors. The students in this country are not known for political instability but we have had a very considerable outcry from them over this affair. The vice-chancellors and the fellow students of those from developing countries have seen the anxieties which the right hon. Gentleman's ill-judged and hasty announcement caused. It is because of the way he has done this wretched action, thus causing so much anxiety to students, that I shall vote against the Government tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman has been well known as one of the high priests of Socialism, a man who believed in planning. In the action which he suddenly took, clearly at the behest of the Treasury, he was guilty of a hasty, ad hoc and unplanned decision which has caused a great deal of anxiety and hardship and has done the good name of this country in international education untold damage—not because of what he has done but because of the way in which he did it.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: This issue has given rise to widespread demonstrations of criticism, most of which has been highly emotional and some of which has been quite without substance. It is, of course, desirable that we should have large numbers of overseas students studying here. That is clearly to the benefit of the overseas students themselves and also to the benefit of our own students through the association

they have with them. Such association can serve as a very useful basis for understanding, co-operation and trade links in future.
Before I turn to some of the more serious problems connected with the proposals to increase the level of fees, I remind the House that, even at the increased rate of £250 in university and £150 in technical college, the fees are still considerably subsidised and that the overseas student will be getting a very good return for money at that price.
The cost of maintaining a student—not taking account of capital expenditure but merely of annual recurrent expenditure, as it is called by the University Grants Committee—at a university here is in excess of £800 a year. Last year. at the University College in my constituency, the cost was £870 per student, which is a very considerable sum. To get that in return for £250 is not too bad. If the capital expenditure were taken into account, the figure would probably be about £1,400 per student.
Let us, however, settle for a figure of between £870 and £900. If it is argued that our own students will pay only ィ70 while overseas students will have to pay £250, we must remember that we are paying for the whole cost, or almost the whole cost, of the education of our own students while, in the case of overseas students, even if they are paying £250, we will still be contributing about £600 per annum towards the education of each overseas student.
This is a period of restriction, of financial difficulty. It is not an outrage that the Government should be thinking in terms of economies but we may properly raise the question of whether this is the right kind of economy. There have been several references to the image of this country abroad and one difficulty is that, in this context, we have not emphasised enough the fact that, even at £250, overseas students will be getting a very good return for their money. That aspect could do with a great deal more publicity.
Much more important, however, is the question of what effect this decision will have on the intake of overseas students. I, too, want to emphasise that I do not think that there is anything sacrosanct about the level of these fees. There


is nothing outrageous about the Government expecting an overseas student to pay these fees if he and his family can afford to do so or expecting his Government to do so if his family cannot. But what about those cases where the fees cannot be afforded at all?
I am now fairly happy, having listened to my right hon. Friend, about the steps that will be taken for the transitional period. It is much to be hoped that the Ministry of Overseas Development will be very liberal in the long run in its attitude to the sponsoring of students from the poorer countries. In our provincial universities—this may be less true of Oxford, Cambridge and some London colleges—the proportion of overseas students from Asia and Africa in relation to the whole of overseas students is very high indeed.
At the University of Wales there were 663 full-time students last year in the four constituent Welsh colleges, and the Welsh School of Medicine. Of these only 112 came from Europe, North America and Australasia, while 551 came from Asia and Africa. Some overseas students from Asia and Africa are very wealthy and spend enormously here; their families visit them often and they probably more than offset any subsidy. However, many others may not be able to afford these fees.
Will the Minister give an assurance that, through his own Ministry, or through the Ministry of Overseas Development, we will not prevent students from developing countries, who would otherwise have been admitted, from entering the country as a result of these increased fees? If this were to happen, if the increase were to operate not merely as an economic measure but as a selection procedure, it would be a selection procedure of the most sinister kind. There may be a good case for limiting the number of overseas students. Our educational system is under very considerable pressure and one might argue the need to devise a fair and equitable method of limiting the number of overseas students. I would be very disturbed if this was done under the guise of financial restriction and economy. It would be deplorable if ability to pay was made, even unintentionally, the criterion of eligibility.
It might be proper for us to adopt a different attitude to students from overseas countries who are coming here to do graduate work and degree-equivalent studies at technical colleges, and those who are coming here to do work of a lower level, to pursue studies for A levels, and so on. When I first took up a post, several years ago, at the Welsh College of Advanced Technology in Cardiff, the college then still catered for A-level students, and in some of the classes about two-thirds of the students were from overseas. Their attitude was a good deal more casual and less academically dedicated than those overseas students working on graduate courses.
I am very concerned that our educational system should be cluttered up by people from overseas studying A-levels here. I know that some countries have limited facilities for this type of teaching, but we would do better to subsidise education in these countries at source rather than to use our domestic resources in this way. My right hon. Friend made the point that we should concentrate on post-graduate work, but I do not feel entirely happy about this. It is important that we should also think of the ordinary graduate student, otherwise we shall have a very specialist selection of students from overseas.
There are, then, two things which concern me. The first is that if we are to restrict overseas students this should be viewed as a separate issue and dealt with openly as such, in the right way, and not in the guise of an economic measure. I hope that we will be given an assurance about this. Secondly, and here the appeal is perhaps more to the Ministry of Overseas Development, it is important to see that subsidy through education is not severely curtailed. With direct aid, the great danger is that it does not go to the people for whom it is intended. By supplying aid in the form of education, one can see where it is going, it cannot be squandered and one is giving something very valuable to other countries.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: We have heard a great deal this afternoon about Socialism being the language of priorities. We heard that phrase from the Minister. I also thought that Socialism was meant to be about the


brotherhood of man, but there does not seem to be much of that principle left in the administration of this particular policy. I want to begin by quoting from a gentleman who receives a lot of attention in this country. He said:
It is in this way that I believe we are making one of the most important contributions to the growth of literacy and to the spread of scientific and technological information.
That was the Prime Minister speaking last October, and not merely describing assistance given by our schools and universities to overseas students, but praising his Government's efforts to expand that assistance. Was he right then and wrong now, or right now and wrong then? The Prime Minister likes one to believe that he is right all the time. He seems to have passed that on to members of his Cabinet, because what disturbed me most about the Minister's speech was the impression that he gave of wondering what all of the fuss was about.
It is the Government's total inability to comprehend how ordinary people think and feel about what they do which disturbs me most of all. They are now talking anxiously about hardship. The Minister was at pains to point out all the students involved who will not suffer. There is talk of some complicated fund. How absolutely stupid not to investigate, to consult and to agree on a measure like this before one hoists one's flag to the masthead—and then begins to pull it down again.
In view of all the controversy and dismay that the Government's action has aroused it is reasonable to ask for a postponement of at least a year for students who are in the country, in order to allow them, and the Government, and all concerned, to work out the practical details of this policy, which are very serious for the students. Not least is the fact that if they are not able to find and pay this extra money it will be too late for them to go elsewhere to continue their courses. The Government's handling of this issue has been awful, and they would do much better to admit it.
More serious than the Government's handling of the issue, however, is the issue itself. A serious part of the Minister's speech was his condemnation of the argument that one ought to let in students

as a matter of self-interest—that one might acquire a Rutherford or something of that sort. I felt that this was misguided, because if the Government's action in this matter is not wholly and completely self-interested, what is it? Ours is a country, by comparison with many others from which students come, which is rich, prosperous and comfortable. Moreover, it is a country which, almost more than any other, has natural links and ancient ties with many of those less fortunate countries.
Everyone agrees that education is one way in which we can help these countries. Why have the Government performed this mean act? Listening to the Minister the answer came, it is money. We are blessed with a Government who have spent so much and encouraged others to produce so little that they are reduced to attacking the pocketbook of those who can afford it least. They know not the damage that they do, because their vision is so limited and their aim is so small. It concerns me to think that the Minister simply does not take in the results of his action.
The Government do not see because they think only of themselves. Our country will suffer for it. The thousands of students who are here, and the thousands who would have come but who will now be forced to seek more hospitable shores, from now on will think of our country as mean, niggardly, and niggling and they will be right.
I end with a word of thanks to our own students for taking the stand which they have taken. It will be remembered in other countries as well as this country. This Government will not last for ever. I hope that the time will come when Britain will once more open its official eye and heart to the needs of those less fortunate in the way that so many thousands of our own people and students naturally want to do.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: After listening to such turgid verbiage, it seems to me that it is a good job that the Minister is not in his place. Had he been in his place, he might have been called a Fascist. After such drivel, may I speak as one who spent some years as student adviser to an African Government and who has met


many students and conversed with many colleagues on the Continent and in the United Kingdom.
There has been criticism and vituperation of the Minister which he does not deserve. He made an efficient and fair speech. I have talked to many people in universities overseas, and I know that this country, under this Government, is doing, and will continue to do, more for overseas students of all colours than any other nation. This is a fact, whether we talk about 71,000 students or the sum total of money spent. We have nothing to be ashamed about.
In my opinion, we need a large number of overseas students. This is enlightened self-interest. Many of them go back as ambassadors, but perhaps some of them do not go back in an enlightened ambassadorial spirit. We hear about landladies who do not take coloured students and they go back not as ambassadors but very bitter. However, by far the majority come here, mix with us, and then go back, on the whole, as our friends. If we talk to past leaders in the T.U.C. we realise that we have to be careful about how we handle our overseas guests. I think that the Minister has been a wee bit clumsy in handling them. I do not think that he contemplated getting such a hornet's nest about his ears.
Like many other Members, I have had cables from our friends and students overseas. I have one here from Mauritius—and may I remind my right hon. Friend that Mauritius does not lack a university.
It reads:
Increased university fees shocked Mauritian parents; deprive poor students higher studies; Britain sacrificing longterm interests; immediate needs; pray intervene; convey solidarity NUS. Ramallah Young Socialists".
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller), many of us must have received similar letters and cables.
The Secretary of State has taken shock measures. He has increased overseas students' fees, but has not increased our own domestic students' fees, as the Robbins Committee recommended. But he will never please students for the only way to do that is not to increase the fees at all. Therefore, let us look at the matter in perspective. I believe, like the Minister, that increasing numbers of students will come here, whatever the

Opposition may say about my right hon. Friend's behaviour in this matter. I would ask some of my colleagues to look at a book by Guy Hunter entitled "New Commonwealth Students in Britain" in which there are more facts and figures than any of us could easily digest. He puts the case fairly, objectively and factually.
However, I believe that too many students are coming from overseas for non-advanced courses. I do not want to see students, whether rich or poor, subsidised or not, coming here in such numbers taking their O-levels. They should be taking these at home—and their A-levels, if possible. I do not believe that coloured students or any other kind of students should be plucked from their own environment and left too long in the United Kingdom. When they return to their own countries, they are often not fitted to play their part in their economy, which is dynamic and tough, and needs dedicated young men. I fear some students stay in this country too long.
I should like to see more places found for students to take advanced courses and particularly post-graduate courses. I would subsidise to the 'nth degree work done at colleges like the South-East London Technical College for Accountancy and other commercial courses, so that these students could go back in their hundreds and fit into the evolving and developing economies of their own countries where they do a first-class job. There have been too many white collars floating about. I hate to mention lawyers in this assembly, but I would like to see a few more engineers, technicians and mechanics going back to Malawi and similar states and working among their own people. I do not want to see students coming here who, with inadequate means, are near the edge of subsistence, and who spend their time in lodgings in Paddington and Notting Hill Gate eking out their time, often having to find jobs to pay their fees.
The Minister has proposed the setting up of a large sinking fund to help students who will benefit by the increase in fees. We all know of communities overseas where people pass the hat round in order to send the best boy in the village—for example, a boy in the Ibo community in Nigeria—to England to study. He returns as a hero if he has done a good job. Such a student would


be badly hit by the increase in fees. I hope that such boys and girls will not be penalised by the increase. The Minister said earlier that he has this matter in mind. He gave some kind of pledge, if I could believe my ears, that he would look after poor students who would be handicapped in this way.
Why do students come here, and how many of them should come here? As the Minister said, there are many universities and colleges opening in Africa and elsewhere. They are getting back gifted graduates and post-graduates who have been here. They are going back home and teaching in their universities. We should be helping those universities and institutions to get on their feet and to have more first-class staff. It is the policy of national Governments overseas to keep their best boys and girls for their own universities. It is perhaps not the best people who come here and face the tough competition to get into our universities. I do not want to see them coining here too early and spending years in getting their O-and A-levels. They should be doing their earlier work in Africa. Our job is to get more post-graduates and we should be helping to find places overseas for students at the lower levels.
May I say a word or two about non-Government students. There has been no limit in the past to the exodus of private students to the United Kingdom. Much more care should be exercised in admitting students of this kind to our institutions. It often leads to misery and unhappiness and they go back home with bad impressions whereas we hope that at the end of their courses they would return as excellent ambassadors for our way of life. I have myself had to help overseas students to return home because they were having an unhappy time, would never pass their examinations and were often wasting their time here. This is not just a simple question of saying that all those who come here should be welcomed and subsidised to the 'nth degree.
However, we cannot have a quota. 1 believe that we should put up fees as has been proposed, always bearing in mind that for those who need help, there should be some kind of a needs test with a view to helping them stay here, particularly for those in the middle of courses who other-

wise would not be able to obtain their diplomas or degrees.
Obviously standards overseas are getting better, and part of our task should be to help such countries to keep their students in their own communities, and to build up the best facilities which they can offer.
If the Minister can only moderate the harsh impact of his financial cuts upon the needy and deserving students, he will be taking a step in the right direction for the long term benefit of the emergent overseas territories.

6.10 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: I listened with some surprise to the arrogant diatribe of the Minister against the vice-chancellors and his former academic colleagues. Unlike him, I did not find their protests against this Government Measure so unrealistic. What I found among those at the universities with whom I have spoken was a far closer common humanity and appreciation of the needs of overseas students and the positive contributions which they were making to the quality and variety of life in our universities. The Minister seems not to understand why the Government have earned the angry and bitter criticism of all our universities and the criticisms within every university. I wonder whether they are all wrong.
What is it which has made the universities so angry about the raising of fees for overseas students? If I may, I shall make some suggestions. It was only a few years ago that all the vice-chancellors recommended the raising of all tuition fees as the Minister has suggested. It was only a few years ago, too, that Robbins recommended that these fees should cover 20 per cent. of the recurrent cost of tuition. They are not against the raising of fees. Why, then, have they been sent into high strikes by the action of the Government?
I believe that it is because they regard this measure as ham-handed and inept. They think that it has been taken without any consultation and without any thinking through of the consequences on the universities' programmes and on their students. Talking to people who have to arrange courses for students coming to London University, one particular criticism which I hear is this. They have


sent out prospectuses laying down certain fees, and they believe that they may now be in breach of contract, by having offered students courses at certain fees and by facing them now with the prospect of those fees going up not by 25 per cent., as in 1962, but 300 or 350 per cent., with a short cushioning period.
The sharp raising of fees, the lack of consultation and the lack of consideration of how it will affect not only those students who are here, but students who are planning to come here and the overseas Governments who are working out their scholarship programmes, have given rise to the protests. I have been involved in working out such programmes, and sometimes they are done on a tight budget. If it is found that the whole basis has to be changed overnight, it sets plans awry and, naturally, there will be a reaction against it.
It has also had an effect, not in one of the developing countries, but on the Fulbright Scholarships. I believe that they are already cutting down the grants for which students of this country would be eligible to take them to America because of the increased fees which American Fulbright scholars may have to pay in this country. That is just one side effect.
People working on charitable trusts and private funds work on budgets. Families have to try to create budgets if they are sending students here. I know that the Minister has said that British Government and British Council scholars will be covered. However, I note that the funds available to the British Council have been cut recently. I note, too, that £20 million has been cut from the funds available to the Ministry of Overseas Development, according to a written Answer yesterday.
If more funds are to be found for this purpose—and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) who suggested that this should be one of the main parts of overseas aid—where else can the extra money be found when the Ministry has a £20 million cut in what it expected to get for next year?
Turning to the subject of private students, I accept a number of the remarks which have been made about students who come here full of hope,

carrying their families' backing, but not really able to make the best use of the opportunities available here. There are a number of them, and I had a great deal to do with them in a previous occupation. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) pointed out, there are a great number of students who cannot find in the developing universities of their own countries the exact courses which they seek, and they have to come here to pursue the careers of their choice. In addition, there are many who need to pursue postgraduate studies. Not all of them will get Government scholarships.
There are other factors intervening. It is often the case that the State will not put the same value on a man's potential that his family is prepared to do. Many of us who remember the faith of Scottish families in their children's capacities will know how important that is. We must not jeopardise the chances of such people coming to this country.
I do not want to be accused by the Minister of being illogical, and I am not against the raising of fees. However, he should have consulted more widely with the countries concerned. He should have told them of the decision which the Government had taken. He should have added that we needed time to think the results through before putting it into effect, and that we therefore intended to spread the rise by increments over five years. In that event, Governments, universities, families and trusts could have adjusted themselves to this very heavy increase. Even over five years, an increase of 300 or 350 per cent. is, to say the least, quite substantial. If there had been more realisation of the impact of this increase, I believe that the Minister would not have been so draconian in his measure and would have spread it over a longer period. Then, he would not have had the violent protests from the universities and from overseas countries.
Do not let it be thought that it will not cut down a considerable flow of students to this country. I have talked with some of the High Commissioners and they say that, in the sector which is privately sponsored, this decision will make a big difference.
I shall vote for the Motion tonight, although I hope that the Minister will


decide to spread the increase over a longer period so that the people most affected can adjust themselves to it.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: While recognising the sincerity of a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, some of my hon. Friends have clear reservations about the degree of humbug in the Opposition Motion. We know full well the outlook of the majority of hon. Gentlemen opposite towards the social services and taxation and it is difficult for us to believe that much sincerity lies behind the Motion.
We have been reminded, in the furore of the debate which has been going on about this subject in recent weeks, of statement made by certain people, including remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is worth noting that at an important meeting of U.N.E.S.C.O. in London on 19th October last my right hon. Friend referred to
Britain's enviable record in providing places in the higher education system for overseas students.
It is precisely because we share that pride that some of my hon. Friends object to the decision of the Government to increase these fees.
I wish, first, to deal with inadequacy of some of the arguments that have been advanced for the decision. Reference has been made to the Estimates Committee and its suggestion that the education which we provide for overseas students is "exaggeratedly cheap". We should consider whether it can be demonstrated that education for overseas students is more expensive elsewhere and, if so, by how much. The records show that in very few countries indeed do the fees cover anything like the full cost of higher education, or a higher proportion of the cost than the fees charged in this country.
The Council for Education in the Commonwealth has done some interesting research on this subject. It has demonstrated that of the nine other countries which, with Britain, receive three-quarters of the world's overseas student population, eight charge less than Britain, while the ninth, the United States, charges higher fees in the more expensive institutions, although it provdies scholarships for 54 per cent. of all overseas

students studying in that country. Together, these nine countries receive more students from Britain than they send to Britain—and most of them take active, positive measures to encourage students from the developing countries to study there.
We have been told that the total rate of increase has more than doubled in the past 10 years, but what of the increase of British students in British universities, for a comparison from this angle must obviously be made? In fact, the rate of increase in overseas students coming to British universities has been declining. In the past five years there has been a 28 per cent. increase in the number of overseas students coming here, while the increase in the numbers going to other countries has been much greater—180 per cent. in Sweden, 89 per cent. in West Germany and 64 per cent. in Italy.
We have also been told that, by having an open-ended commitment, we might be entering into something we cannot meet. In fact, there is good reason to believe that, with the expansion of higher education opportunities in the countries from which overseas students have been coming, this increase would have petered out in the next two or three years, even without this fees increase. We know, from analysis, that the saving of £5 million is open to question and that the cushioning effects announced in another place on 14th February will reduce the saving even further.
We also know—any layman can recognise this—that reducing the numbers of overseas students in a particular faculty or course does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the cost of that faculty or course. The suggestion that the saving may be less than half the amount announced is probably sound. The shaky statistical analysis which has been made gives ground for concern. There are other aspects of the decision, and explanations for it, which are equally disturbing. One is forced to ask whether the homework was really done as thoroughly as it should have been in advance of the increase.
It has been stated that it would be a good thing—some of my hon. Friends have suggested this with sincerity—if more students from overseas were to study at home instead of coming to Britain. While this is a questionable general


assumption, we should recognise that for a large number of overseas students there are no opportunities for them to study in their own countries. In this connection, I quote from a letter which I have seen from the Kenya High Commission in London. It stated:
We expect many of our U.C.C.A. candidates to withdraw their applications and seek admission at the University of East Africa. We do not really have sufficient places to meet an inflated demand. Secondly, we are unable at present to offer a full range of degree courses and thus many students are going to be forced to alter their career choices. In the long run this will mean that fewer specialists and technically-trained personnel will be seeking employment in the country.
We have also heard the argument about Government-backed students being best. However, we know of countries where excellent students have, for political considerations, not been given official Government backing. One must ask in which way the Governments of developing countries are to be expected to provide the extra funds to meet these extra fees. The letter from which I quoted also stated:
The majority of Kenya Government Bursars follow one-year Teacher Training courses. Fees are already high and we feel that in order to meet the proposed increases the number of bursaries offered is liable to he drastically cut. This will seriously affect our training programme. We foresee similar cuts in Commonwealth Bursaries, Technical Aid. etc.
It has also been suggested that certain countries from which students come here have a far higher standard of living than we have. However, it is the case that a good many students from these countries do not themselves enjoy that standard and one cannot generalise with arguments of that kind.
The Secretary of State said a considerable amount about what I can only describe as questionable statistics. For example, he said that of the 1,500 students who came here last year, 500 stayed on in Britain or went on to further education elsewhere. For how long did they stay on in Britain, for what purpose did they stay on, how long did they stay here before returning home and, for those who went elsewhere, for how long were they elsewhere before going home?
The House has been told that there is a shortage of places for British students in our universities. The National Union

of Students has been absolutely right to challenge the Government to demonstrate even one instance when a British student has been denied entry to university or other place of further education because of overseas students coming here.
It has been suggested that the universities are able to absorb these fees increases. We know that the Government will assume that the increased fees are being paid when the degree of financial support for the universities is being decided. I urge my right hon. Friend to remember that some universities are unable to absorb these fees; and certainly that applies to the great majority of technical colleges. We have also had some rather shocking and highly selective quotations from Robbins, although we could have expected better from a Department with such an outstanding record.

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend has made a number of charges which are totally incorrect. He referred to a number of what he described as "shocking" and "selective" quotations. Would he say when they were made?

Mr. Judd: In earlier discussions on this issue suggestions were made that Robbins had argued in favour of higher fees for overseas students. In fact, Robbins was in favour of higher fees all round. If we were proposing higher fees all round, that might be another matter, but as we are not, Robbins would not have favoured those increases.
One thing must be made clear about the Department of Education. It is wrong for anyone to suggest that this measure has been motivated by racialism, and I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend refute in the strongest terms any suggestion of this kind.
However, we must look at the way in which this could be interpreted in the country. The easily identifiable overseas students are the coloured ones, and we must realise the significance of the Government's proposals to an already undermined public opinion on this issue of racialism.
We must also look at the lack of consultation to which reference has been made. I refer to a lack of consultation right across the board, particularly in


respect of embassies and high commissions here. Some feeling has been expressed by the High Commissions in this country—that this has come at a time of our preoccupation with Europe—and they obviously feel that there has been a lack of consideration on our part for the older ties which we have with the Commonwealth. I trust that my right hon. Friend has taken note of what has been said on this matter. I will not go now into the way in which these increases were announced.
It has been wrong to argue this mainly in a technical way, in terms of a residual amount of hardship for overseas students, because this completely fails to recognise the significance of the situation. It must be seen against a background—I know the arguments which the Government will give for this—of reduced priorities for overseas aid and development right across the board. There has been a cut of £20 million in the overseas aid and development programme recently, which is more than twice the rate of cut in domestic and defence programmes.
If we are looking at the significance of this cut, we must recognise that we have to move away from the age in which we regarded overseas aid and development as purely charitable. We must look at it as being justified basically on two grounds.
First is the ground of strategy. If we are spending vast amounts on defence to contain conflict when it occurs, it makes nonsense not to spend increasingly highly on programmes of aid and development to remove the breeding grounds of conflict—the ignorance, disease and poverty which lead to conflict. To do this, we must provide the skilled personnel to lead the developing countries to their full economic development.
The second ground is the indivisibility of the world economic community, the fact that increased purchasing power in the world is in our own direct self-interest in the long run. For this reason again, we are sad to see any cuts, including those concerning fees.
At the eleventh hour, I appeal to the Minister and the Government, because of their outstanding record to date on domestic education policy, to think again.
I appeal because the Labour Government and the Labour Party are proud of their tradition in granting independence to countries in the fight against colonialism. This fight becomes a hollow exercise if, when we have the power, we are not prepared to back up the political fight by providing the wherewithal to make a substance of the political independence which has been granted.
That demands, above all, the personnel to run the countries in their own right, and for this powerful reason I believe that the fees for overseas students are essentially an important part of the overseas aid and development programme. I hope that the Government will think again, despite the economic pressures of the moment, and insist that the cuts be made elsewhere, so that we can have an altogether more meaningful overseas programme and policy.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: rose—

Mr. E. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be possible for the Front Bench to allow us 10 more minutes for Government back benchers like myself, who do not support the Government, to say why?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. David Steel: Further to that point of order. Are we barred by the rules of the House from going on past 7 p.m., or is it merely an agreement through the usual channels?

Mr. Speaker: The rules of the House operate tonight.

Mr. Steel: Further to that point of order. I am sorry to press this, Mr. Speaker, but you will have noted that, for the first time in a long time, no Liberal Member was called—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not question the Chair's right to select speakers. If he feels that the Chair has been unfair, he has his remedy. I would remind him that he spoke on this topic on Monday.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sure that we all sympathise with the wish of all


hon. Members to continue the debate, but I am not sure that it would be helpful for the Government if that happened.
I remember saying to an hon. Friend of mine that it would be impossible for the same result to happen here as happened when this matter was debated in another place and nine noble Lords spoke from the various back benches without one voicing support. Today, we have had the pleasure of listening to 10 short speeches from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides and, with the possible exception of the qualified support from the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies), the Government have found no friend on either side of the House—

Mr. James Johnson: This is not so, because I gave more than qualified support for this policy, although I had my reservations.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I took down the hon. Gentleman's words. He said that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had been thoroughly clumsy in his handling of this matter—

Mr. James Johnson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has not given way.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The reason for this is, first of all, the resentment at the form of the announcement, at a written Answer to a written Question right at the very end of the Parliamentary Session and, what has not previously been said, when corporate opinion in the colleges and universities was dispersed for Christmas. There was every sign of a rushed decision, inadequately thought out.
The second reason for strong feelings in the debate and elsewhere was the lack of consultation with the vice-chancellors and principals who have come under such scathing fire from the Secretary of State, which was far removed from those cosy little gritty dinner parties when they were told how important they were to the economy. I believe that there has been no proper consultation with the University Grants Committee, though I take it that what the Secretary of State said—I hope that his hon. Friend will confirm it—means that it substantially

supported the proposals which we are now debating. Finally, when the vice-chancellors approached the Prime Minister to make their representations direct, they were brushed off and passed on to the Secretary of State.
The third reason for the strong feelings expressed today from both sides is that the exemptions have simply not been properly thought out. This emerged from speech after speech on both sides from hon. Gentlemen, many of whom, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), spoke from a lifetime's experience. No thought was given to the hardship caused to those who are not cushioned by the £50 increase to those who are already here.
The Secretary of State chose to say that he had always hardship in his mind. I have to say to him: no, he had not. I have equipped myself with the original statement in his written Answer and with the Press announcement which, as is customary, went with it. There is no intention in the original Answer of 21st December or in the Press note of any explicit provision for hardship. No, Sir—the provision for hardship came later. The point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) made so ably was that the effect of this £50 increase is even greater when measured against those universities with a four year and not a three-year course, of which Keele would be an example.
There was no mention originally of hardship. The Government moved on 14th of February, the date of the public announcement, when they said that they had been impressed by the representations made to them. The representations were made from both sides of the House and came, among others, from right hon. and hon. Friends of mine who heard themselves described earlier today as only having come into this business at the last minute. Once again, there was a movement, an inroad, into the economies, with the creation of a fund limited to those who are at present here on a course.
There were also representations from both sides referring particularly to the 4,000 students who are here studying A levels in the belief that they will have a place next September and who, as things then stood, found themselves with a swingeing increase of fees. In the early


hours of Tuesday morning, as the few of us know who sat up to listen to him, the Minister of State moved again. He showed that the A-level student is to be brought within the £50 increase. As I understood it, he will be counted as if he were already on a course here. That is important. It illustrates two things—first, that the original proposals were never carefully thought through and, secondly, that further inroads have been made into the alleged economies.
Various reasons, additional to the financial one, have been put forward for this action. It has been said that it would be right to encourage students to study at their home universities. That is not the principal argument, but it is a peripheral one. The right hon. Gentleman put it forward again today. It strikes ironically at the 334 students of Mauritius who have no university. It strikes at the students from Cyprus. It strikes, ironically, at medical students who want to study medicine in Africa and have to go to Lagos, Makerere or Salisbury. It also overlooks the increasing contribution which is now made in the post-graduate field. Here the Secretary of State was exactly right; this is the way in which our contribution will in future help. Post-graduate courses often lead to the building up of centres in their home countries, and is therefore of great value. But to imply that the greater number of these postgraduate students will be Government-sponsored is not in accordance with the facts.
I must truncate my remarks, partially because I am expecting a substantial concession from the Minister of State.
I now turn to an examination of the principal concession. There is a factor about it which has not yet been brought out. The principal exemptions will be made in respect of British Government sponsored students. Notice the emphasis on "Government sponsored". One of the essences of British Council sponsored students tends to be that they are also acceptable to their home Governments. This point was very well brought out by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), who was not able to speak a second time but who, early on Tuesday morning, gave the example of five students from South Africa, sponsored by the British Council, who are

approved by their Government and who will be cushioned, but whose colleagues from the United Nations Training Programme will have to pay the full increase. That is a strange order of priorities, resulting from the proposals that we are now discussing.
Lastly, this has been said but it can be repeated. Even those hon. Members—and they exist on both sides of the House—who are critical of our present level of aid, or its application, join together in agreement that this form of aid is among the finest provided by this country. I wish that the House had been more full when the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) gave moving testimony of this, speaking with a lifetime's experience.
Most graduates are leaders in the societies in which they live. This is well understood by other developed countries, who provide for their education. Increasingly, our exports will be of sophisticated goods and the "know-how" that goes with them, together with the training of our potential customers. That is surely of importance, and a matter of the greatest concern. If ever there were a case of "bread upon the waters", this is surely it.
In penetrating speech after penetrating speech by hon. Members on both sides of the House these measures have been demonstrated to have been hastily thought out and hastily implemented. They have been shown to be discriminatory in a way abhorrent to large sections of opinion. They give an undue emphasis to the Government-sponsored student. The economies which they allegedly produce can be shot right through, on the Government's own figures. Noticeably, the Secretary of State did not do what he undertook to do at Question Time, namely, give the actual cost of the fund. It is to be hoped that the Minister of State will put that right. Instead of being placed against the background of overseas aid as a whole this expenditure is placed against the narrow educational budget.
I noticed, as many of my hon. Friends did, a certain intellectual arrogance about the Secretary of State as he dealt with criticisms both from behind and before him. He will live to rue this day. We are expressing the overwhelming view of


the academic and non-academic sections of the nation, which is why I shall vote with such a will tonight.

6.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): The matters that we have been debating today have understandably aroused deep emotions. I should be the last to decry such a motivation, especially when it was put forward so sincerely by many people who have dedicated themselves to the service of international aid. On these occasions, however, it is necessary to keep a sense of proportion and perspective—to avoid exaggeration and certainly misrepresentation, which can only harm the cause which we all have at heart.
There is no difference between the two sides of the House about our desire to do as much as we can, within our resources, to aid our less well-placed friends and brothers overseas. In all fairness, my right hon. Friend, speaking with the utmost sincerity—the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) who referred to my right hon. Friend's arrogance, cannot possibly know him one-tenth as well as I do—has assisted the House and the country to take a more deliberate view of this difficult but urgent matter.
It has been of growing urgency for some time. The Robbins Committee in 1963 and the Estimates Committee in 1965 drew attention to the need for control. This was central to the thinking of the Robbins Committee. It said that the open-door policy, subscribed to by all parties in the House was, by 1963—and certainly it has been since—taking on the character of an open-ended commitment.
The debate has been marked by extremely interesting and cogent suggestions, but I did not hear an alternative to the proposal to apply some control to this hitherto uncontrolled subsidy. Many hon. Members have made criticisms which, in turn, carried suggestions for ways in which the measures of assistance already announced by my hon. Friend could be most effectively and equitably applied. I give the assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend and the Government that everything said by hon. Members on that score will be carefully con-

sidered—because we are as anxious as anybody else in the House that the transitional fund and the methods for coming to the aid of those who are genuinely in need as a result of the increase in fees shall be as effective and as fair as possible.
As the hon. Member referred to the subject, perhaps I may indicate the Government's intentions. We have said that the total grant to universities will assume an income of £250 per annum per overseas student. This is not binding on universities; some may exercise a sense a priority in this respect—as, indeed, we must all exercise a sense of priority, and as, indeed, the Government are entitled to create their priorities.
All students on British Government or British Council grants will have the higher fees paid by the British Government out of an increase in overseas aid funds. Of the others, no student already embarked on a course will pay more than £50 extra. All students financed by Governments of developing countries will have the extra £50 paid for them by the British Government to their own Government. Finally, for those not financed by Government funds either here or in their own countries, a fund will be created to enable grants to be made towards the increase in fees where hardship can reasonably be claimed, and with special reference to developing countries. It would be discriminatory to confine this fund to developing countries or to Commonwealth countries. We shall attempt no such discrimination, but we shall seek to make this fund specially applicable to the needs of students from developing countries.
How many people are involved? There are 71,000 overseas students in the country. About 16,000 of them are students from developing countries, and are self-financed. Not all of these, of course, are of straitened means, but among them, my right hon. Friend and I agreed there are and always will be students for whom, once we had raised the general level of fees, there would have to be special alleviating provisions; students whom we have heard described by hon. Members on both sides who, in their own countries, have not as yet—although great progress has been made—university, technical college or even higher school facilities; students who are


dependent upon very small allowances based on the penurious but self-sacrificing efforts of poor countries. Those are precisely the students whom we were enxious to help through this fund.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) indicated—[Interruption.]—I am extremely sorry, but we agreed on a self-denying ordinance in order to enable as many hon. Members as possible on both sides to make their contribution. I am labouring under some difficulty because I am truncating my speech as I go along, and, as a somewhat inexpert practitioner in that respect, I am almost inclined to ask for the indulgence of the House.
Then there is the special category of those who follow sequential courses, possibly starting at A-level here and perhaps going on to advanced courses on that basis. The general principle here will be to ensure that students already embarked on a course or sequence of courses should not have to curtail their studies by being faced with increased fees on moving from one course to another. Equally, the Government are determined that no present overseas student should have to give up his studies simply because he cannot find the extra £50. The fund will be framed with precisely this object in view.
The fund will be the subject of a Supplementary Estimate in due course, and it is perhaps then that its amount, conditions and administration can most effectively be debated. It may be that procedure will require that two Supplementary Estimates must be tabled, but the House will certainly have an opportunity to examine precisely what these arrangements amount to.
The question of consultation as to how best to assemble and administer this fund has been raised by a number of hon. Members, amongst them the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott). I can say that there will be full consultation—it is, in fact, proceeding now—with the academic and educational authorities concerned, with the student organisations and with representatives of

those experienced people who have been working for many years in this dedicated way among overseas students in this country.

We are very much aware of the problems facing charities, trusts and foundations which have been mentioned more than once today, and we would certainly consult representatives of that sector of assistance.

The aim will be in the next few weeks to table with the authorities concerned a draft memorandum of guidance about the precise categories affected, with a note on the way the easement might work for students who cross from one academic course to another or who, during their course, face a difficulty about completing that course. The memorandum will be made public, and it will he made available to hon. Members.

Some hon. Members have talked as though these measures will suddenly shut off all forms of aid for overseas students; as though, because there is this raising of the basis of fees—although coupled with a fund to alleviate hard cases—we will somehow wipe out the whole of the Government's programme in regard to overseas students. This is completely at variance with the facts. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am tempted before I sit down to ask both sides of the House once more to read the last few Reports of the Ministry of Overseas Development, and to take pride in how much this country has been doing, and is doing, for overseas countries that are in need. One of the most inspiring chapters in the latest Report of that Ministry—I make no party point about it at all, because it is agreed policy—is that on education.

I am sure that, having looked at this in perspective and having brought—

Mr. William Whitelaw: Mr. William Whitelaw (Penrith and The Border)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly—

The House divided: Ayes, 222, Noes 276.

Division No. 278.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Awdry, Daniel
Bell, Ronald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Balniel, Lord
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Astor, John
Batsford, Brian
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Berry, Hn. Anthony




Bessell, Peter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Biffen, John
Harris, Reader (Heaton)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nott, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Onslow, Cranley


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Blaker, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hay, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Llonel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Braine, Bernard
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pardoe, John


Brewis, John
Heseltine, Michael
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Higgins, Terence L.
Peel, John


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hill, J. E. B.
Peyton, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pink, R. Bonner


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Burden, F. A.
Hooson, Emlyn
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Campbell, Gordon
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Prior, J. M. L.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hunt, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Chanson, H. P. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clark, Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Corfield F. V.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Roots, William


Costain, A. P.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crawley, Aidan
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Currie, G. B. H.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Dance, James
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, Anthony


Dlgby, Simon Wingfield
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Rippon)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tam'th, Langstone)
Tapsell, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Eden, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Loveys, W. H.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lubbock, Eric
Teeling, Sir William


Eyre, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Temple, John M.


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Thorpe, Jeremy


Fisher, Nigel
Mackenzie,Alasdalr(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Tilney, John


Fortescue, Tim
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Foster, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Galbraith, Hn. T. C.
Maginnis, John E.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus
Wall, Patrick



Glover, Sir Douglas
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walters, Dennis


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhew, Victor
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Webster, David


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grant, Anthony
Miscampbell, Norman
Whitelaw, William


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Younger, Hn. George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Francis Pym and




Mr. R. W. Elliott




NOES


Abse, Leo
Barnes, Michael
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Albu, Austen
Barnett, Joel
Boardman, H.


Alldritt, Walter
Baxter, William
Boston, Terence


Allen, Scholefield
Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Archer, Peter
Bence, Cyrll
Boyden, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Ashley, Jack
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Bradley, Tom


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Binns, John
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bishop, E. S.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blackburn, F.
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)







Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howie, W.
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hynd, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Probert, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Randall, Harry


Chapman, Donald
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Redhead, Edward


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richard, Ivor


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwllym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Dalyell, Tam
Ledger, Ron
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow,E.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davidson,Arthur (Accrington)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roebuck, Roy


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dell, Edmund
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sheldon, Robert


Dempsey, James
McBride, Neil
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McCann, John
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dickens, James
MacColl, James
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Doig, Peter
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Donnelly, Desmond
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunn, James A.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackie, John
Skeffington, Arthur


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Maclennan, Robert
Slater, Joseph


Eadle, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Small, William


Edelman, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin
Snow, Julian


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Steele,Thomas(Dunbartonshire,W.)


Ellis, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


English, Michael
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Stonehouse, John


Ennals, David
Manuel, Archie
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ensor, David
Mapp, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Marquand, David
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Swingler, Stephen


Faulds, Andrew
Mason, Roy
Taverne, Dick


Fernyhough, E.
Maxwell, Robert
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Finch, Harold
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mellish, Robert
Thornton, Ernest


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Floud, Bernard
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tomney, Frank


Foley, Maurice
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Tuck, Raphael


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Urwin, T. W.


Forrester, John
Molloy, William
Varley, Eric G.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Freeson, Reginald
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wallace, George


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gourley, Harry
Moyle, Roland
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Weitzman, David


Gregory, Arnold
Murray, Albert
Wellbeloved, James


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neal, Harold
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Norwood, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oakes, Gordon
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric
Wilkins, W. A.


Hamling, William
O'Malley, Brian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hannan, William
Oram, Albert E.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Harper, Joseph
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hutchin)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Willis, Goerge (Edinburgh, E.)


Hattersley, Roy
Padley, Walter
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hazell, Bert
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Paget, R. T.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Henig, Stanley
Palmer, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Woof, Robert


Horner, John
Park, Trevor
Wyatt, Woodrow


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Yates, Victor


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. Charles Grey and


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. William Lawson.

Orders of the Day — GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I have been in consultation with the Chairman of Ways and Means who is in charge of the Bill. He has advised me that he thinks that it would be for the convenience of the House if, after the Second Reading has been moved, the first Amendment on the Order Paper is moved. With that Amendment can also be discussed the second Motion. At the end of the debate, if the House so desires, we can have Divisions on each. The Amendment is to leave out from "now" and at the end of the Question to add:
That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months,
and the Motion is:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Part III (Open Spaces) of the Bill.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The Bill provides certain useful improvements in the powers of the Greater London Council and the London boroughs. In certain respects it restores powers which were previously enjoyed by the Council and which were removed, inadvertently or otherwise, by recent legislation. Most of the improvements which it makes will, I hope, be relatively non-controversial. If controversy arises, I hope that the critics of the Bill will think it proper to reserve their detailed criticisms for a later stage and will not take the view that it is necessary to divide the House on Second Reading, or on the Instruction.
No doubt the most controversial part of the Bill is that which provides powers for the Greater London Council to secure the provision of a camping place in Hainault Park. There is a Motion in respect of that provision in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and there are petitions by certain interested bodies and I therefore propose to deal with that part of the Bill in some detail. However, I propose at this stage to avoid taking an undue share of the time of the House by discussing the

remainder of the Bill in detail, and I will summarise those provisions.
Part II is concerned with various financial provisions. Its objective is to improve the borrowing powers of the Greater London Council and the London boroughs and also to widen their powers of investment of their superannuation funds. Clause 5 is inserted at the request of the Treasury. It alters the criteria for fixing the maximum borrowing powers by the issue of bills of the Greater London Council and the boroughs. The position is that in the 1966 Act, which corresponds to the Bill, the Greater London Council was restricted to a maximum of £25 million and the London boroughs among them to £30 million, and it was left to the boroughs to devise the division of that maximum sum by means of a scheme with the Treasury acting as a kind of umpire. This has not proved to be altogether satisfactory and the Clause therefore repeals Clause 25 and fixes the new maxima not by reference to prescribed figures, but by reference to the rate calls for the areas of the authorities concerned.
Clauses 6 and 7 give additional powers for raising money to the Greater London Council of a kind similar to those enjoyed by the former London County Council. Clause 6 enables it to raise money by issuing bearer bonds and Clause 7 enables it to borrow money abroad. Both of these powers will be subject to Treasury control. Similar powers, formerly enjoyed by the London County Council, were found to be extremely useful and that is why the Bill will provide these powers for the Greater London Council.
Clauses 8, 9 and 10 extend the powers of the London authorities to invest their superannuation funds. At the moment, these powers are restricted by the limits imposed by the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1937, and the Trustee Investment Act, 1961. As hon. Members will know, by virtue of the provisions of the Trustee Investment Act there are a certain wider range and a certain narrower range of investments which the authorities concerned are empowered to use to the extent of half in each category.
While the limits laid down by those Acts may be desirable and essential in the case of many trustees, it is reasonable that those powers should be extended for the London authorities, particularly the Greater London Council itself, which has


enormous superannuation funds at its disposal and which also has the opportunity of obtaining considerable experienced advice. At present, the Greater London Council in particular and its treasurer have found themselves somewhat hamstrung by their inability under the present regulations to invest the very wide funds which they control. The Clauses in question would therefore enable the authorities concerned to invest appropriate parts of their funds for the acquisition and development of land in fixed interest securities, debentures and in loans issued overseas. This extra provision is not by any means something wholly novel because, as hon. Members will know, certain nationalised industries with large superannuation funds—the National Coal Board, for example—also have extended powers.
I come to Part III of the Bill, which is concerned with open spaces, and Clause 11 in particular, which is concerned with Hainault Forest. I hope that the House will forgive me for saying a little about the history of this open space and the way in which it has developed over the last century or so. Hainault Forest is a fragment of the ancient Forest of Essex, which was a mediaeval royal hunting ground of which Epping Forest is the most notable surviving part. Hainault Forest, by the early part of the nineteenth century was diminishing both in extent and quality and by the end of the nineteenth century its 4,000 acres had decreased to a bare 800 odd.
At that time, through the efforts of various local and national bodies led by Mr. E. North Buxton, steps were taken as a result of which what remained of the forest was acquired in 1903 by London County Council under the provisions of the Hainault (Lambourne, Fox Burrows and Grange Hill) Act. The result was to preserve the land as open space and also—I hope this will be greeted with approval by hon. Members—to provide a recreational area within easy reach of London.
London County Council, to its credit, carried out very great improvements by careful maintenance and tree planting and also by acquiring in 1934 a substantial additional area of land, but it did not regard this forest simply as a place in which people could walk in peace in

the countryside. It has never been the intention that it should be that and that alone, attractive though it is from that point of view.
Well before the last war an 18-hole golf course was laid out with the assistance of J. H. Taylor, a well-known golfer, and later a second golf course was added. In addition, there are other forms of sport and recreation provided for, including team games, athletics and angling. The result of that provision was that the L.C.C. enabled more and more Londoners to enjoy the recreational facilities provided at Hainault, and as the years have gone by it has become one of London's great lungs.
In recent years, as hon. Members are aware, camping and caravanning have become more and more popular forms of recreation both at home and, perhaps owing to restrictions in this country, even more so abroad, particularly on the Continent of Europe. There is no doubt that the growth of paid holidays has created a growing pressure for the more mobile, more free and easy, and indeed more inexpensive type of holiday in tent, caravan or dormobile. This is something which I hope we shall never cease to encourage. I hope we shall not put such pressures and restrictions on our people who want to have these benefits that they are forced to go abroad in search of them. In this country alone the number of campers has risen from three-quarter million in 1955 to 2½ million in 1965.
Apart from our own campers and caravanners, many visitors from abroad want to enjoy the hospitality of London and its surroundings, people who perhaps cannot afford the prices of hotels or who in many cases might not be able to get bookings in hotels. Just as places abroad make provision for and welcome visitors of that kind, it is most desirable that we should do so and that we should provide adequate camping and caravan sites within easy reach of towns such as London as a base for exploration of our towns and countryside. London in particular has been under very considerable pressure to provide such sites, but unfortunately land for the purpose is very scarce.
There is a small site in my constituency at Crystal Palace. That has proved quite


inadequate for the purpose. It is constantly under pressure and clearly provision will have to be made for additional sites. At those sites there must be proper toilets, sanitary and other accommodation and conveniences which in these days people expect. The purpose of Clause 11 is to enable such provision to be made in Hainault Forest as part of the varied and many recreational facilities which are there provided and for which it is suitable in many ways. It is suitable by virtue of its accessibility to London because a caravan or camping site could be discreetly hidden among the plentiful trees thus avoiding the spoliation of the scenic beauty of the forest.
The total space which would be used for this purpose would be a mere 10 acres, which is less than 1 per cent. of the whole of the forest. It would be used for only six months in the year and in the remaining six months it would be land available like any other land in the forest for the use of the general public. The present intention or proposal is to invite the Camping Club of Great Britain and Ireland to manage it. I do not think I need say anything to this House about the very high standards of that body. They are well known to all concerned with camping and caravanning. The site would be used for short-stay camping and caravanning only. There is no question of its being used for residential purposes.
If as is expected the selected site is in the County of Essex, because the area concerned is partly in Greater London and partly in Essex, that county would be empowered by the Clause to exercise all normal planning controls, with the single exception, of course, that it would not be empowered to refuse consent to the development for which this Bill provides.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is it right to say that the proposed 10-acre camping and caravanning site would be wholly outside the Greater London area? Would it in fact be situated in that part of the forest which lies in Essex?

Mr. Silkin: The Bill makes provision to enable a camping site to be wherever the authorities wish to have it, but the present proposal is that it would be within the County of Essex, that being

the area which is thought to be most suitable. I should say straight away that the County of Essex—which, as hon. Members no doubt will know, was at one time objecting to this proposal—has now withdrawn its objection upon certain undertakings which are incorporated in the Bill and which have been given to the county by the Greater London Council.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Is it correct that the Greater London Council has a definite site in mind?

Mr. Silkin: Certainly. It is with regard to that site that the Essex County Council has become involved and that undertakings have been given. The Essex County Council has, subject to those undertakings and to its maintaining the planning control to which I referred, withdrawn its objections. There is a specific site in mind, but the Bill provides power to put this site, not in any specific place, but in Hainault Forest as a whole.
The interests of walkers and nature lovers are well recognised and are well provided for in the forest. Let us not forget that many campers and caravaners are themselves walkers and nature lovers. Many of them go under canvas or go out in their caravans simply because it makes it more easy and more pleasurable for them to enjoy those pursuits. It would be most unfortunate if those who are not campers or caravanners, however much they may love walking and love the quietude of nature, were able to veto a proposal which will give enjoyment and pleasure to thousands of Londoners and many visitors to the London area.
I therefore hope that Clause 11 will not prove to be a matter of such controversy that it will be thought necessary to divide the House upon it. Indeed, I urge hon. Members, who I know are much concerned with this area, to take the view that this Clause, like others, can most properly be discussed and argued about at a later stage.
Turning from that probably most controversial part of the Bill to the other open space provisions, Clauses 12 and 13 make certain minor improvements to the open space powers of the Greater London Council and the London boroughs.
As to Clause 12, when the corresponding Bill became law last year a general


power was given which, on reflection, was thought possibly to enable building to take place on common land without ministerial control. The purpose of Clause 12, which was inserted at the request of the then Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, is to ensure that Ministerial control will exist over building of that kind in the future. No doubt it will be necessary in due course to amend the title of the Minister concerned.
Clause 13 enables the Outer London Boroughs to enjoy the benefits of open space powers which have been found most valuable in the case of the Inner London Boroughs. It has been the policy over the last few years, since the passing of the London Government Act, to try to rationalise the various open space powers within the London area, a purpose which no doubt will be regarded as desirable. This Clause takes a step further in that direction and, it may well be, completes the process.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves Part III, although it is a very small point, would he cast his mind back to Clause 11(2,a)? Why is a great lump of the Act left blank there? Did it drop out of the type, or could not they think what to put in?

Mr. Silkin: The part which appears to be left blank, would, I imagine, be filled in by a name. I assume and hope that the name will be filled in at a later stage. At the moment I cannot enlighten the hon. Gentleman as to what the name should be.

Mr. Iremonger: It might be anyone.

Mr. Silkin: I doubt, however, whether the omission has any very considerable effect on the principle either of the Bill as a whole or of the Clause in particular.
Part IV deals with acquisition and use of lands. It restores powers which were previously enjoyed by the councils concerned prior to respectively the years 1966 and 1965 and which seem to have been removed, probably inadvertently. Clause 14 enables the authorities concerned, when exercising their powers to acquire land by agreement, to override restrictive covenants which affect the land in question, but on payment of compensation. This is a position which applies

for the Acts covered by Clauses 14 and 15 all over the country other than in London, but, because of the peculiarities of the legislation and the interaction between the London Government Act and the Compulsory Purchase Act, 1965, or for some reason of inadvertence, those powers were removed as they affected London.
The effect of restoring those powers, as is proposed to be done by Clauses 14 and 15, Clause 15 in relation to Part V of the Housing Act, 1957, has the very great advantage that in future, where the authorities concerned require to override restrictive covenants in order to carry out the public functions for which they are acquiring the land, it will be unnecessary for them to use compulsory powers. At the moment, if they buy the land by agreement, they cannot override the restrictive covenants. It is clearly in the interests of all concerned that it should be possible to avoid resort to compulsory purchase, wherever that can be done.
It must be recognised that these Clauses have certain retrospective effect, for a very short time; but in practice this is not likely to be of any moment, because the Greater London Council knows of no case where it has acquired land within the period not covered by the previous legislation and where there has been any threat to take proceedings against the Council because of a restrictive covenant.
If such proceedings were taken, and particularly if building had commenced, it is inconceivable that the court would grant an injunction. It is highly likely that the remedy would lie in damages, which are simply equivalent to the compensation for which provision is made in the Bill.
Clauses 16 and 17, which concern Bloomsbury Square, will, I hope, be wholly non-controversial and be regarded as highly beneficial. They are inserted at the request of the Camden Council to enable that council to construct a much needed underground car park under the square. Agreement has been reached with the freeholders of the square, and it is certainly the hope and intention of those concerned to improve rather than to detract from the amenities and beauty of the square.
Part V provides for certain extensions of time which are a commonplace in these Bills for certain works of improvement which have been delayed by financial and other restrictions. I hope that they will not detain the House long.
Part VI deals with certain public health matters, the main provision being that which concerns hairdressers and barbers in Clauses 21 and 22. Powers are provided for the London boroughs as a whole which were previously enjoyed by the Metropolitan borough councils but which were removed by the London Government Act. The purpose of the powers now to be provided is to enable each London borough, if it so desires, to require registration with the council of hairdressing establishments, the aim being to facilitate enforcement by the London boroughs of their duty to secure cleanliness under the Public Health Act, 1961.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say what effect, if any, these Clauses would have on the Royal Palace of Westminster, and whether a borough would have power to impose its regulation on the gentleman who attends to our needs in the lower corridor? If he failed to apply for registration, would Mr. Speaker be liable to a daily fine of £5, or would matters of privilege arise?

Mr. Silkin: The short answer is that I have not the remostest idea, but I can find out.

Mr. Iremonger: May I try to help? I think that the answer lies in the delicate reference in subsection (1) to making an appointment with inmates.

Mr. Silkin: I always welcome help from the hon. Gentleman, though sometimes, I confess, I suspect it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We seem to be dealing with Committee points now, though some of them interest me deeply.

Mr. Silkin: I am only too happy to accept your Ruling on that point, Mr. Speaker.
For the Inner London Boroughs, these powers are a restoration of what existed before, and they are now extended to all the London boroughs, with, one hopes, consequent improvement in the standard

of cleanliness of the establishments concerned.
Clause 23 is inserted at the request of the London boroughs. It is similar in form to one found in many local Acts. It extends to all the London boroughs powers formerly available in Inner London and Middlesex to enable the local authorities concerned to carry out works necessary to enable water supply to be restored to premises at which the water authority has been compelled to cut off the supply owing to defective fittings. The Clause will enable the authorities to carry out the necessary works to restore the supply of water, needless to say, charging those concerned with the cost of so doing.
I do not think that I need stay to deal with the remaining Clauses, except, perhaps Clause 26—

Mr. Charles Doughty: Clause 25 raises a very important question. Has the Greater London Council consulted the City of London and the two Temples on these provisions, which affect them greatly and directly?

Mr. Silkin: Again, I shall find out about that.
Clause 26, no doubt, will be welcomed by all. It provides for the abolition of tolls at Greenwich Pier. I am sure that this will be greeted with heartfelt relief by all Londoners.
In Part VII there are certain miscellaneous provisions to which I need not refer in detail.
This is a valuable Bill. It will add to the powers which the Greater London Council and the London boroughs enjoy, and I commend it to the House.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. William Roots: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add, "upon this day six months".
The explanation of the Bill's provisions given by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has not entirely satisfied me, at least, and it has raised a number of problems over which the hon. and learned Gentleman skated rather quickly. For example, Clause 5 provides for the power to issue bills, but we have no explanation of why that method of borrowing is so much preferred to that of the Local Loan Commissioners.
As far as I can see, the main difference in this Bill is that the Greater London Council can borrow up to 10 per cent. on the aggregate gross charge to rates—I have not added up what this is for all the boroughs, but it is a substantial sum—and then by subsection (3) the boroughs are given pofer to borrow another 10 per cent. If, therefore, one sticks to the existing method of accounting which is common to local government, this means that, quite apart from any power to fiddle, if I may respectfully call it that, by means of building up reserves, there is here a power of 20 per cent. carry-over from one year to the next.
This is to make nonsense of our present system of accountancy. If the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the present system of accountancy is nonsense, we are getting nearer common ground, but while he sticks to the present system but, virtually, gets round it by borrowing on a short-term basis, a substantial explanation is called for.
Clause 7 gives power to raise money by borrowing abroad. It seems extraordinary that at this time the Greater London Council should be taking power to mortgage our position abroad. A great deal of explanation is needed as to why it is necessary to go abroad to get the admittedly rather large sums the Greater London Council is in the habit of borrowing. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given no explanation of the reason, or what the effect will be. I do not think that one wants to borrow money from Europe, Africa or anywhere else when it should be available in this country.
Under Clause 8 the Council will be given power not merely to invest its superannuation funds but to indulge in management of real estate, which is clearly a risky business. Apart from anything else, if the Council indulges in management it comes straight up against the existing planning provisions. The slightest alteration in its management or the type of development of building which it has brings it into the position of possibly seeking amendment of the development plan. Planning authorities can think of 101 reasons why the development plan should be altered in the way they consider would be most helpful. I do not suggest dishonesty in that, but there may easily

be a grave clash of interests, and with power to invest in land in that way the matter is by no means trivial.
I shall not deal with the question of the open spaces, because that is the subject of a separate Amendment. In Clauses 14 and 15 the hon. and learned Gentleman clearly had in mind the different dates and the retrospective effect of the legislation. I gather from his speech that no case has arisen between the passing of the London Government Act and now, and I fail to see why the provision should be made retrospective, except possibly as a form of tidyness.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Was it not rather a strange argument which the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) advanced in saying that there was no harm in it because the Greater London Council could not recall a single case to which it would apply? Does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that that is an argument for not making it retrospective? If the Council did know that there was a case to which it applied there would be some point, but to catch one unawares seems a very questionable doctrine.

Mr. Roots: That is what was very much in my mind. At best, there seems no purpose in the provision; at worst, it seems a provision for something which, so far as this House has been told, does not exist. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Subsequent speakers may elaborate the point, but at present I fail to see why we should give a retrospective effect to the provision.
In Clause 18 it is most remarkable that
The period now limited by the Act of 1964 for the exercise by the Council of powers for the compulsory purchase of lands …"—
and the two areas concerned are set out—
is hereby extended, or further extended, until 1st October, 1970.
That doubles the period during which the powers may be exercised. I can understand the Council wanting to be on the safe side, but if it has been forced to overrun its time it should give a very much better explanation than simply to say, "Oh, well, we feel that by 1970 we shall be quite safe, and therefore we shall double the length of time." I very much hope that we shall get a better explanation.
I next come to the provision concerning hairdressers and barbers, which is most curious because all it seems to require is that the hairdresser and barber should be registered; nothing seems to happen to him when he has been registered. But he must be registered, which enables one to have a chief officer in charge of the barbers' register and suitable other officers to maintain it, alter it and correct it. But there is no provision for what is supposed to happen when the man has been registered.
There is, however, on page 16 in the proviso, a provision which I find highly objectionable in that it alters the substantive law of the country. It says:
…nothing in this section shall require a borough council to issue a certificate of registration in respect of any premises in a case where planning permission for the use of the premises for the carrying on of the business of a hairdresser or barber is required in pursuance of the provisions of the Act of 1962 and has not been granted.
"The Act of 1962" is the Town and Country Planning Act. Under the provision, a man who is in position without having obtained permission, but has been there more than four years, could be required by the Greater London Council to obtain permission. The provision enables the Council to override the law. It is a highly objectionable Clause, which entirely alters the substanial provisions of the law of the Town and Country Planning Act in respect of that one category of persons in London, and it apparently does it without any object because all that is to happen is that the barbers and hairdressers are to go on a register. The position is absurd.
I have one small point on Clause 23, under which a borough council may provide water fittings. There is no proviso there about premises which the owner wants to pull down. He may be trying to empty premises. But the borough council, by stepping in and renewing the fittings, can entirely do away with this object. I have called attention to a few omissions and errors and I would welcome a good deal more explanation before giving the Bill a Second Reading.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I should like formally to move the Motion standing in my name and that of the

hon. Gentleman the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison):
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Part III (Open Spaces) of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman cannot move the Instruction at this moment but only speak to it.

Mr. Parker: Last year, the Greater London Council introduced a Bill which included Clauses with regard to Hainault Forest. There were strong objections to its proposal to create a caravan and camping site in the forest. These objections were made both in this House and by local residents. The result was that the G.L.C. withdrew the relevant Clauses but without prejudice to its right to introduce them in a later Bill, which it has now done.
I want to add one or two points of history to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). The area was a real forest until it was enclosed by an Act of Parliament in 1851. At that time, most of the trees were grubbed and it was ploughed up. Only a small part remained woodland. The greater part of what, in courtesy, we call "forest" is in my constituency. It consists of golf courses and playing fields. As my hon. and learned Friend said, very good use is made of this land but adjoining it is part of the original forest, most of which is in the constituency of Chigwell.
This is a rare thing to find to the east of London in the Essex area, apart from Epping Forest. It is a small area of natural woodland and it contains the wild animal and bird life common to natural woodlands. The natural woodlands cover about 280 acres. The area is used very widely by people from the industrial parts of my constituency, from the East End of London generally and from various boroughs in that area of Essex. It is a real lung for the benefit of the people there and unlike the other kinds of lung I have mentioned, which are organised and laid out for amusement, this is wild natural country.
The G.L.C. has put in one or two car parks so that people can leave their cars when going picnicking or walking in the woods. People go there at weekends or during the evening in the summer.


Youngsters in school holidays cycle there and make good use of it. There are a refreshment kiosk and toilets in the developed part not too far away from the natural woodlands. They are quite adequate to provide for the needs of those who walk in the woods.
It is proposed that there should be a caravan site in the natural woodland. According to information given to me by the Caravan Club of Great Britain, 150 units will be accommodated there when the site is laid out, including trailers and such things. At least 75 of them would be caravans. The site would cover 10 acres in the middle of the woodland and would require road development. Far more car parks would be wanted and more toilets. The area would have to be fenced around, with a caretaker or warden. In fact, a great many things would have to be done if it were to be put to full use.
It is not true that the access to the proposed area of the camping site is easy. On the contrary it is dangerous. A very narrow road runs along the edge of the forest and this lane crosses the main road to Dartford Tunnel northwards and there is bound to be a lot of traffic at the junction which would be interfered with by caravans or trailers going to the site.
Why on earth should the G.L.C. select this space for a caravan site? The Council's arguments have changed. To begin with, it said that there was a need near London for tourists from the Continent or the North who needed a site at which to leave their caravans that would be convenient for getting into London easily and for getting back. That was the first argument.
In fact, access to London is very difficult from this site. It is two and a half miles to Grange Hill, the nearest underground station and three miles to Hainault Station. Whatever one may say about Hainault not being the natural station for the area, many of those camping in Hainault Forest would go there to get to London.
Now, the argument has altered. The G.L.C. says that it wants an area near London for the benefit largely of Londoners to camp. As far as my constituents are concerned, there is little Or no room for any one in Dagenham to possess a caravan. It is difficult enough

to find room for cars. Most families now have cars and people from my area would not benefit from such a site for caravanning. Indeed, I doubt very much whether Londoners want to go there. It is too near. It is only on the outskirts of the built-up area. The only people who might go there would be from Hampstead or somewhere else to the north-west, en route for East Anglia or the continent.
There are quite a number of alternative sites for caravans nearby. Debden Green, three and a half miles away, has 48 acres for the use of caravans. It is not fully used at present. There is another caravan site at Grange Farm, two miles away, and in the Lea Valley scheme it is proposed to provide all. sorts of facilities for the enjoyment of the public. One would have thought that a caravan site could easily be provided in that scheme. Again, in that part of Essex, if one wants easy access to London, there are some suitable sites adjacent to railway stations.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: My hon. Friend should not proceed on the assumption that this site is regarded as alternative to the existing sites at Grange Farm or Debden Green or other sites which might be incorporated in the Lea Valley. Rather it is complementary.

Mr. Parker: If these other sites are not fully used at present, that does away with the argument that an extra site is required. If it was necessary to create further caravan sites in the area, there are various spaces adjacent to railway stations along the lines leading easily into London, where coal yards have been closed down and where there is quite a lot of open space, with water and other facilities already laid on. These would provide easy access to London.
Again, Fairlop Airfield is not at present used. Part of that could be used as a caravan site if required. I was very surprised when I received from the Caravan Club information to the effect that the proposed site was being created at its initiative, that it had put pressure on the G.L.C. to do such a thing and that the Club would run it. My hon. and learned Friend said that the Club would run it but there has been no mention of that from the G.L.C. up to date and one should have qualms about that.
An article in The Times of 21st January referred to a similar site run by the Caravan Club on the edge of the New Forest. It began:
Warfare has broken out around the Harrow Wood Caravan site at Bransgore, on the pastoral fringes of the New Forest.
It went on to say that trouble had arisen between the local inhabitants and those running the site and that people had been placing cars across the entrance to the site with the idea of denying entry to caravans. There has been a great deal of friction between the people concerned.
We do not want that kind of thing in our part of Essex. The G.L.C. scheme states that no tent or caravan is to stay for more than 28 days and that the area is to revert to open space from October to March annually. That is quite absurd. If a great deal of money is to be provided out of the rates to build a caravan site, to install a warden in a house, and provide toilet and refreshment facilities, access roads and all the other things necessary, then I am convinced that it will not be left unused for half the year. Once it is there, there will be pressure to use it throughout the year.
There is a great shortage of camping sites throughout Essex and East Anglia for gipsies, and the police have already had to be called in to clear them from a certain site recently in Romford. This is a different point but there should be provisions made in other parts of eastern England for camping sites for gipsies. In the winter this area will almost certainly be occupied by gipsies and the police will have to be called in to remove them.
How does the site come to be in the possession of the G.L.C.? In the G.L.C. leaflet it is stated that the original cost was £21,830. The money was raised as a result of a public appeal, backed by the National Trust, the Metropolitan Gardens Association and the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society. Local authorities collaborated, including Essex County Council, West Ham, Leyton, Wanstead and Ilford. Dagenham would have done too but at the time it was only a parish council of about 5,000 inhabitants.
To complete the purchase the L.C.C., as it was then, paid the £10,000 which was still outstanding. It was asked to

take over the site management, and up to now it has made a good job of it. People in the area feel that when a piece of land like this is bought up by various authorities combining, it should remain for the use of the public as a whole and not be restricted to a certain section who by their use will exclude the public from enjoyment of the area. The proposed site for the caravan is in the middle of the 280 acres and the creation of a caravan site will destroy the amenities of the woodland.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I fully understand the principle, but what I do not follow is how the hon. Member applies this to the use, for example, of the golf course, swimming pool, fishing areas and football and cricket pitches. Surely they are as much or as little available to the public as a whole as this land?

Mr. Parker: These pieces of land are not wild woodland. They were ploughed fields and were laid out as cricket pitches, football grounds and golf courses, whereas this woodland was woodland when it was handed over, and it should remain so. So much feeling has been aroused that many organisations have joined together in resisting. They are: the Epping and Ongar Rural District, Chigwell Urban District, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpath Preservation Society—which was one of the organisations which took the initiative to purchase the area in the first instance—The Friends of Hainault Forest, the Dagenham Constituency Labour Party, the North East Metropolitan Division of the British Legion, the London Natural History Society, the Ilford Section of the Ramblers' Association, and the Southern Area of that Association.
There is strong feeling against this proposal, and we feel that the G.L.C. is quite wrong to attempt to make this change at this time. We are not denying people the right to have caravan sites elsewhere. We realise that there is a need for such sites, but we do not think that they should be provided by destroying one of the few pieces of natural woodland remaining in the green belt near to London.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: To some extent I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dagenham


(Mr. Parker) in his wish to preserve one of the few open spaces in the neighbourhood of London, because I represent a constituency which has a very beautiful section of green belt, similar I imagine to Hainault Forest, about which the hon. Gentleman was speaking. On the other hand, I do not think that one can for ever ignore the need for increased recreational facilities for Londoners which may be provided on land such as this.
In my constituency we are constructing a golf course on green belt land and most Londoners welcome the provision of amenities such as this, and of caravan sites such as the G.L.C. is proposing to build under the Bill. I should like to deal with the implications of what the hon. Gentleman was saying about the winter use of this site. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is well aware, we have a serious problem in my constituency, as a result of gipsies camping on the verges and on land belonging to local authorities. This matter has been raised several times in the House at Question Time and in two Adjournment debates by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes).
The thought struck me when the hon. Gentleman was speaking that it was extremely wasteful to provide facilities like this and to use them for only half the year. As he said, the tendency would be that, as soon as the summer caravan residents moved off, the gipsies would move in. I do not know the area well enough to say whether this would be a suitable use of the land, but the hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point in drawing attention to the shortage of places in the Greater London area where gipsies can go in the winter.
As the House will know, itinerants and gipsies normally work on farms for the whole of the summer, go hop-picking in the autumn and finally return to winter quarters until the following spring. The use of the caravan site that the Greater London Council is planning to construct in Hainault, as temporary quarters for the six months of the winter period, is a possibility. Has anyone considered the possibility of using these caravan sites for that purpose? There is no mention of it in the Greater London Council's Memor-

andum. It merely says that there will be restrictions on the seasons of use, approximately from Easter or the beginning of April, to the end of September.
It so happens that if this period is required by the holidaymakers, the remainder of the year would fit in extremely well with the gipsies' needs. The site would accommodate about 150 to 175 caravans. This would go a long way towards solving a most intractable problem. In my own area there cannot be anything like 150 to 175 caravans during the winter, and if permanent facilities were available in some other part of Greater London, the gipsies might decide to use them.
It has been brought to my attention that many of the itinerants located in my borough originally came from the Essex area. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary was aware of that. Not only do we have caravan dwellers from Kent along the edges of the A21 and on the sites belonging to the council which it hopes to develop but is being prevented from developing by the presence of these caravans. I am told that a substantial minority of these caravans has come from the county of Essex.
There was a remarkable note in paragraph 14 of the Greater London Council's memorandum to the effect that the whole site would need to be enclosed by a fence during the camping season. Will the fence be removed at the end of the camping season? Would it not form part of the permanent installation? I deduced from the description given that the camp is segregated from the rest of the area and that it would not interfere too much with the amenities of the forest. Therefore, from this point of view also, it might be adapted for the purpose which I have mentioned.
Another point about the Bill on which I should like clarification arises from Clause 12(2), which provides:
Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of section 51 … of the Act of 1935 … a local authority shall not … enclose … any part of a common, except with the consent of the Minister given in pursuance of a written application in that behalf made to him by the local authority under this subsection, which consent the Minister is hereby empowered to give in such cases as he thinks fit.
We have had an extremely complex legal tangle in my constituency over the acquisition of common land for the purposes


of a traffic improvement scheme. This land is at the Locks Bottom intersection of the A21 with Crofton Road. Originally application was made by the Orpington Urban District Council to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for consent to enclose part of this land under Sections 22 of the Commons Act, 1899,for the purpose of this traffic improvement scheme—the erection of traffic lights, widening roads, and so on. At that time, the Orpington Urban District Council was told that it would be better for it to wait until the G.L.C. had started work and that the whole matter could be reviewed then.
After 1964, when the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources was created, I wrote to the then Minister and asked him for his assistance in sorting out the legal problems. It turned out that the statute prohibited him from entertaining any application for the enclosure of Metropolitan common land except in the former counties of London, Middlesex and Surrey, where powers existed for the Minister to entertain such applications purely for highway improvement purposes. The Minister told me that it was doubtful whether comparable provision had been made in the local Acts relating to Kent.
I hope that I have not wearied the House with this description of the history of the matter. It has been going on for a long time. When I wrote to the Minister in May, 1965, he said that his lawyers would be consulting the G.L.C. to see how the problems could be solved, but he thought it unlikely that the necessary processes could be completed within six months. A year has passed and still no progress has been made on this traffic improvement scheme. Things are becoming desperate.
The amount of traffic on the A21 and Crofton Road which leads off it from this intersection has increased markedly. I drive past the intersection frequently on my way to the House. There is a possibility of serious accidents being caused at this junction through the absence of proper traffic measures which appear to be stymied by the Minister's lack of power to entertain applications for the enclosure of common land.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether Clause 12 is designed to cope with the problems which I have been

describing. What is the position in the case of Metropolitan commons, which are the subject of special legislation—the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1886, and, in this case, the Metropolitan Commons (Farnborough) Supplemental Act, 1904? Will the Minister have power to consider an application from the G.L.C. to enclose this land for highway improvement purposes notwithstanding the fact that these Acts appear to have prohibited him from doing so and that there is no provision in the local Acts relating to Kent which would have allowed it before the G.L.C. came into existence?
I can see nothing objectionable in the Bill as a whole. As I have said, I think that proper recreational facilities must be provided in Greater London for its 9 million inhabitants. This caravan site will be an additional facility which many Londoners will enjoy, even those who live in Dagenham. There must be some people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dagenham who own caravans and who would like to take them to this new park. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I am sure that many of the matters raised in the debate can be resolved in Committee.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Carol Johnson: I intervene to say a few words about what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) rightly referred to as the most controversial features of the Bill. I should begin by disclosing that I have a rather special interest as the Vice-Chairman of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, which is one of the petitioners against the Bill and which has a special right to petition because it was one of the bodies which assisted in the acquisition of the forest.
I must make it clear that no criticism is made of or any objection taken to the bulk of the Bill. I intend to restrict my remarks to Clause 11, which deals with the provision of a caravan site in Hainault Forest. I might summarise the objections which the petitioners against the Bill have by saying that they object to this Clause, because it produces a fundamental change in the policy of administration which hitherto has been followed in regard to the forest.
It is significant that the petition is presented not only on behalf of two local authorities in the immediate area, but also on behalf of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. Those two bodies, national in character and highly respected, whose views and opinions are sought by both central and local government, have an outstanding record in their contributions to the preservation of our national heritage. The mere fact that, with their high sense of responsibility, they should have felt it necessary to petition against this Measure must give us all food for thought.
I might add that, in addition to the society which I represent, I have the authority of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England to say on its behalf that in its view this is not merely a petty local issue but one which raises important questions on the protection of open spaces for general public enjoyment. The bodies to which I have referred keep a watchful eye on the activities of both central and local government as well as those of private persons to see that open spaces remain open spaces.
The opposition to Clause 11 of the Bill is designed to ensure that Hainault Forest is maintained and preserved for the purpose for which it was acquired originally over 60 years ago, namely, for preservation as an open space.
Before dealing with my specific criticisms, however, it is only right and proper that some tribute should be paid to the G.L.C. and its predecessor, the London County Council, for the efforts which have been made over the years to improve this area and in making the forest attractive not only to people who live by it and use the many facilities which it provides, but to the many visitors who go there. It is because I feel that the proposals in the Bill would detract considerably from the enjoyment which innumerable Londoners and others have gained from their association with the forest that I take part in this debate.
The proposed camping and caravan site would not be for the purpose of enabling people to enjoy Hainault Forest but would, in effect, provide a tourists' dormitory for visitors to London, and

that is not a proper use for a public open space. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich pointed out, Hainault Forest is used for the playing of games, especially football and golf. Those are active sports, but we must not forget the large number of people of all ages who like to walk and wander away from roads, cars, traffic and noise. For such people, parts of Hainault Forest have afforded ideal conditions, and it is unfortunate that a proposed camping and caravan site is to be located in a wooded part of the forest which is natural in appearance and attractive to walkers, and has hitherto afforded peace and relaxation to those wishing to commune with nature.
In the extremely attractive brouchure which has been published in the past about Hainault Forest, one of the points stressed is a very material one:
Should the Londoner visiting the forest for the first time pause for a moment, he will perhaps be aware of something missing—something which he can never escape in, say, Hyde Park or on Hampstead Heath. It is the sound of traffic.
I suggest that that will be changed by the proposals embodied in the Bill.
It may be said that these proposals affect only a small part of the forest, and my hon. and learned Friend said that only 1 per cent. of the total area was involved. But, as emerged clearly from the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), the proposal must be related to the very limited area which is the woodland site, and in that context it becomes a substantial part. If one looks at the map and sees the present layout, it would immobilise a considerable section of the woodland area.
My hon. and learned Friend failed to appreciate the very real anxieties which are felt by many people about this proposal. Let us consider for a moment exactly what the proposed development involves. First of all, there are the caravans themselves, and obviously they will accommodate several hundred people. Secondly, the caravans will be brought by cars, so that the number of vehicles will be almost doubled, although Dormobiles have their own means of locomotion. In any event, there will be a very large number of vehicles on the site.
If use is to be made of the site, some access road or roads will have to be provided, because none exists at the moment except for Manor Road, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham has pointed out one or two factors in connection with that.
We must remember that if the intention is to provide a caravan site for visitors to London, obviously what will happen is that caravans will be left and people will go off in their cars throughout the day to visit parts other than the forest.
We must also remember that permanent buildings which are to be erected—the toilets, the ablutions and the provisions stores. Can it be said that with such changes there is not also a fundamental change in the character of the Forest? I concede that there is a case for the provision of additional facilities in the London area for the increasing number of caravanners—both those who live here and those who come here from abroad—but places like Hainault Forest are so precious that they should be considered only as a last resort. Little evidence has been submitted this evening showing that the G.L.C. has seriously considered alternative sites.
I should have thought that the Lea Valley Regional Park was created to meet the very need which has been put forward as the reason for the Bill. Bold and imaginative schemes have been proposed for the development of that site, and I would have thought that it could include a caravan site. There are also other sites, at Debden Green—where there are 48 acres which are not fully used—and Grange Farm. I suggest that the case has not been made out for changing the character of the Forest, and I hope that as a result of this debate the authority will seriously consider deleting Clause 11.

8.36 p.m.

Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullus: Bills of this kind always present some difficulties, and this one is no exception. Although it is a small Bill, for once the language and the drafting are well above average. The layman can understand it. Normally, laymen are suspicious of local government Bills because they are couched in terms that the layman does not understand and

sometimes, by default, a Bill goes through and it is only later that we learn to our cost what has happened.
I do not suspect this Bill in that way, but there is a story in local government circles concerning an unscrupulous town clerk who was presenting a Bill and who also wanted a divorce but could not get one. After some particularly difficult phrasing in a Clause he added the words:
and the Town Clerk of the Borough is hereby divorced from his wife
and he was! I do not know whether that story is apocryphal, or whether the divorce would have been binding. I suspect it would have been. At any rate, it behoves us to go carefully through these Bills.
I have great pleasure in seeing the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) here, because he is a London Member and is, no doubt, taking a great interest in the debate.

Mr. William Molloy: rose—

Sir E. Bullus: It is a little early in my speech for an intervention.

Mr. Molloy: I was interested in the hon. and gallant Member's apocryphal story concerning the technical language of Bills passing through this House. I have also felt that some of the language that we are forced to use in legal documents is very difficult for laymen to understand. I have thought that it is probably done by one set of lawyers to keep another set of lawyers occupied. Now we have been told of a third category—the town clerk, who must have been a lawyer who was trying to cash in on both sides.

Sir E. Bullus: The hon. Member has made a long intervention. I hope that it will count as a speech. These Bills are a lawyers' paradise. Both opening speakers were "silks".
I want to ask a few questions from a layman's point of view. We have heard a lot about Part III this evening, and I shall refer to it only briefly. It is a good idea to provide a10-acre site, but we want to know a lot about it. If the site is already decided, is it an open space or will it have to be cleared? There have been questions about whether there are to be


permanent buildings. What about hygiene? Will there be any restrictions on the site?
The mind boggles at what might happen. An extreme example is that N.A.T.O., which moves from country to country, might establish a base in Hainault Forest. This is an extreme example, but we want answers to these questions—

Mr. S. C. Silkin: As I said, if this site is, as I expect, in the area of the Essex County Council, that council will have full planning control. The operations of the site will be subject to the terms of an undertaking which would incorporate the kind of things to which the hon. and gallant Member is referring. However, so far as there may be anxieties on these matters, they are surely anxieties which can be best ventilated in Committee.

Sir E. Bullus: Quite, but this is a Second Reading and I shall probably not be on the Committee, so I am asking these questions now, as is my right.
The hon. and learned Gentleman boasted of what the Greater London Council has done in this forest in planting trees. Will any of them be cut down to provide for this site? I am anxious that the forest should be preserved. Will the trees be retained?
That leads me to the second page of the Bill, which refers to the underground car park to be provided in Bloomsbury Square. This may be useful, but I want to know how many trees will be removed from the Square to provide it. There are many valuable old plane trees in London and I hate to see them taken away and not replaced. If they are replaced by saplings, these take a number of years to grow and give the benefit which we ourselves enjoy at the moment.
This car park may be a good idea, and I hope we get it, but I hope also that we shall lose no trees—

Mr. S. C. Silkin: May I answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman's specific question? On the camping site, no trees will be removed. On the Square, only a very small proportion of the site will be affected by building operations.

Sir E. Bullus: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had told us this in his speech,

there would have been no need for these questions, by means of which we elicit the information which we require—

Mr. Carol Johnson: We should have a rather clearer idea of exactly what is involved. Many of us have been supplied with a brochure relating to Hainault Forest, and I think that the authorities at County Hall have outlined what will happen if these proposals go through. They indicate clearly that it is essential to clear some trees to make the site available. I think that my hon. and learned Friend would agree if he would look at the map.

Sir E. Bullus: I have had a record number of interventions for so small an audience. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson). I asked a question and the mover of the Bill assured me that no trees are affected, but his own hon. Friend points out that they are. Perhaps we should leave it at that.
Clause 8, relating to the investment of the superannuation fund, is a delicate point with hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Clause says that the borough council may invest in such property in such manner "as they think fit." That gives rise to some important questions, as it could mean a form of nationalisation or, at best, municipalisation, which is much the same. This Clause states that the value of the property is
to be the value of the investment at the time at which it was made.
Does it mean that the Socialist-majority G.L.C. is going into the market as a profiteering landlord? These questions must be asked because the answers to them will be wanted on 13th April, a date not far ahead.
Part V is headed:
Extension of time for compulsory purchase of lands by Council.
These have been described as "commonplace powers", by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), but they are anathema to me. I loathe compulsory purchase of any sort, although I recognise that it may sometimes be necessary, in the interests of the community, to have such powers; but they must always be used sparingly. Why they should enter into a Measure


of this sort I do not know, particularly since here they are
…extended, or further extended, until 1st October. 1970".
The Ministers knows my feelings on this issue. In my constituency, in Brent, we have suffered considerably as a result of the use of compulsory purchase powers and I am the last person to want to see them, extended or otherwise, in any Bill, because I regard them as an iniquitous form of acquiring property.
What a peculiar Clause is the provision in Part VI headed:
Hairdressers and barbers".
It states that hairdressers and barbers must be registered if they are to
…carry on…business…on any premises in a borough…
What about barbers and hairdressers outside London? The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may recall that my late hon. Friend who was the Member for Battersea, South, Mr. Partridge, introduced a Bill which was designed to ensure that hairdressers would be registered.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): Why does the hon. Gentleman describe him as "late"? He is still alive.

Sir E. Bullus: I used the word "late" in the sense that he is no longer an hon. Member. Why the G.L.C., with this vast area of London to administer, should go out of its way to see that hairdressers and barbers are registered I do not know. Is it more snooping? Is this to be peculiar to London? Does the Minister agree that voluntary registration is the best form of registration?
Clause 23 is concerned with the
Supply of water to premises where supply cut off".
If the state of the property is such that the water has been cut off, or such extensive operations must be done to get the water going through the pipes that it must be restored, it is obviously slum property. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite—who have a majority on this Council and who profess to have great interest in slum clearance—would, instead of asking for powers of this nature, have gone in for slum clearance on a big scale to ensure that proper houses are built.
I have been asking a number of pertinent questions, the answers to which are required by the people of London, who are now taking a greater interest in the way in which they are governed. Certainly they will want the answers by 13th April.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I was interested to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) expressing his anathema of all forms of compulsory purchase. While he was speaking it occurred to me that Part III of this Measure is vital because too much of the land of this country was compulsorily acquired by a bunch of villains a couple of hundred years ago, and it is still in their possession. Perhaps one day a Government will have the courage to restore that land to its rightful owners—the British people. When that day comes we shall not be messing about with little provisions like this. In the meantime, we must do something for land which is already publicly-owned land. One day a lot of the land that is in the hands of so-called private owners will belong to the people of this country. I was pleasantly surprised to read a special supplement in no less a paper than the Daily Telegraph advocating the sort of step that I have mentioned.
Part III must present difficulties to hon. Members whose constituencies are on the borders of the area concerned. Whenever such a proposal is made by an authority greater than the usual local authority, or by Parliament itself, it is difficult to get people to see the regional or even the national reason for that step to be taken. In my constituency at present we are very anxious that a proposal to push through a large trunk road will be dropped, and that sanity will prevail.
That being so, I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), but I am opposed to their views in principle. An attempt is being made here to cater for yet another section of the general public. It is desperately unfair to speak of golfers as part of the general public and of anglers as part of the general public, but to refer to caravanners or tent dwellers as a section that is not part of the general public.
The area concerned is truly attractive and lovely, and I am with my hon. Friends


when they ask for much more detail than is outlined here of what precisely is proposed. As I understand it, when the Measure becomes law and the Greater London Council has this authority a great deal of the actual planning control will be vested in the Essex County Council. I understand that at present Hainault Forest is maintained out of funds provided by the G.L.C., and many of those who enjoy the forest and all that is involved in living near it are being subsidised by the ratepayers of the Greater London Council. I have no particular complaint to make about that, because I think that we sometimes get too much involved in trying to find out who is to pay for a certain project when the fact is that anyone from any part of the country, can come and enjoy it. More than our own people enjoy the beauty of this forest, and I believe that the proposal in this Bill is an encouragement to British youth.
This is not merely a question of caravanners and tent dwellers. Those of us who have travelled over Europe have discovered that in France, Belgium, Western Germany and Italy much more is done for youth by way of camping and all the ideals behind camping. Much more is provided on the Continent—and certainly much more in North America—than is provided in this country. In this respect we have been negligent, and I hope that we shall soon be rid of the Victorian attitude of "This is our forest and no one shall enter it", or "This is our open space; it is meant only for us." It almost reaches the stage of some people saying "This is our air; it is only for us to breathe."
The figures that I have show that the numbers of campers has increased enormously. It was estimated in 1955 that there were 750,000 in Great Britain but by 1965 the number had grown to two and a half million. We should encourage this outdoor activity. Camping club membership has gone up from roughly 21,000 to over 91,000. I could quote many other relevant figures. We want to encourage the trend of young people getting out of our great cities and going away to spend their time at camping sites—and perhaps spending less time in the vicious drug taking which we hear is

so widespread in our great cities. We cannot have it both ways. If we can get young folk interested in other things, in becoming campers, in taking their holidays and spending their weekends in the open air instead of lounging around the high streets of our towns, we will be making a contribution to their lives. The G.L.C. is seeking powers to do so.
When one has had experience of a local authority in poor areas, in social services, when one has come up against the problems and the terrible predicaments which young people can get into, it is no longer funny or amusing. People are always asking why we do not do something to help young people to get out into the country, to get into the fresh air, perhaps to emulate scouting, but when an idea to support the theory is proposed, there are all sorts of arguments against it.
The Greater London Council should be congratulated. In other capitals, in Rome, Berlin, Paris, there are provisions for people to camp near the great cities. There are not similar provisions in this country. Consequently, these sorts of things are remarked on in international gatherings of young folk, and our young folk are sometimes embarrassed because we have not provided such facilities. While that is not the gravamen of my argument, I hope that the Greater London Council will go ahead with this scheme and encourage young folk to get away from the architectural leprosy from which we suffer in many of our great cities.
In many respects Hainault is admirably suited. It is not very far from Greater London or from the fringes of one extreme to the other. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), said that present facilities and amenities would not be interfered with. That is one of the things on which I want an assurance. My hon. and learned Friend said that there would be no interference with cricket pitches, football pitches or the golf course, but I would like him to advance that a little further, because people in that area, particularly working people, might want a Rugby pitch.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: We will not be interfering with the golf course.

Mr. Molloy: I am more concerned with not interfering with the cricket pitch


rather than with the golf course. Golf courses take up an extraordinary amount of space. It is all very well to say that folk can walk across a golf course, but one always has the feeling that the little white pill will give one a harsh rap on the back of the neck, and this detracts from the comfort of walking across an open space if it happens to be a golf course.
I should like an assurance about the siting of the camp. I am glad of the assurances which we have had about existing facilities, but I would like to be assured that the site itself will not offend visual amenities. Visual amenity, too, is a valuable asset. I should also like an assurance that there will be no obstruction to the main access to the woodlands.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich said that cognisance would be taken of the need to provide toilets and ablutions and so on. I am glad of that. Hitherto, lack of facilities of this sort has created difficulties for campers and caravanners. I am not sure whether, if they were not provided, there would not arise the situation about which my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham spoke, with altercations developing almost into fierce riots. According to his prognostication, Hainault may become more famous than Hastings. I do not believe that. I think that that danger will be removed, because this time the site and its environmental requirements will be properly planned.
There are 20 million campers in Europe and 30 million in North America. We live in a world which grows ever smaller. Many American campers spend a great deal of time in Europe and many European campers would like to come to this country.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman threatening that almost 30 million campers will come and live in Hainault Forest?

Mr. Molloy: If we are to have any invasion threat, I would much prefer it to come from campers.
Throughout the world camping is on the increase. It is on the increase in this country, but when young Britons go overseas they are not able to explain why this country does not provide for

foreign campers the facilities which our campers can find abroad. This is something which the House should take seriously. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) spoke about a possible invasion by American campers. The grim truth of the matter is that in some other event we would not mind how many Americans came here, how much land was churned up for gun sites, or how much land was taken to house the soldiery.
I hope that the House will support proposals which will advance the decencies of civilised behaviour. I can well understand the apprehensions of those who live in the area. There would be such apprehensions wherever it was proposed to establish such a site, but we have to consider an issue of this character on its broad principles and from a national as well as from a regional point of view. If we explain to the people in the area what it is that we are trying to do, those who live in the vicinity will understand and will not merely not be hostile, but will applaud the efforts being made.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has a kind heart and I know that he will have listened with sympathy and care to the strong arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) against Clause 11, and I hope that he and the promoters of the Bill will accept the Motion which stands in the names of the hon. Member for Dagenham and myself. The hon. Member for Lewisham, South spoke with the authority of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, but he also spoke with sympathy for the very strong feelings of the thousands of my constituents and, not only of them, but of nature lovers well beyond Chigwell and beyond Essex.
I thought that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) was the victim of a misunderstanding. We who oppose Clause 11 do not do so in any dog-in-the-manger spirit.
We do not want to keep Hainault Forest just for the people of Chigwell.


We consider the regional as well as the local interest—to use the words the hon. Member used—but Hainault Forest is, and has been, at the disposal of Londoners and people from further afield and from overseas. That is the reason why we want to keep this piece of lovely forest inviolate. That much of Hainault Forest has been enclosed and cleared for organised recreation does not seem to be a reason why more of the forest should be taken away when there are so many people who seek their recreation in natural surroundings.
The House will know that Charles Dickens described Chigwell as:
the fairest place in the world".
I am the hon. Member for Chigwell, and I hope to try to keep it so.
Arthur Mee, writing of Essex in the King's England series, described the majestic view from Chigwell Row down on the famous Hainault Forest:
where kings and abbots hunted and the G.L.C. now reigns.
He wrote:
So close it is to London, yet all around is wild and natural, the nightingale sings in the thicket…
I must admit that I have not heard it recently—
and many big trees increase their girth undisturbed, though the giant of them all, the Monarch Fairlop Oak fell a century ago.
Some reference has been made to the history of Hainault. I shall not go into it except to say that at the Reformation the rights of such great religious houses as the famous Abbey of Waltham were reannexed by the Crown and, I suppose on the advice of the Patronage Secretary of the day, granted to various persons for services rendered. There was one exception. That concerned the rights relating to the tract north-east of the River Boding which had belonged to the Abbey of Barking. These were retained by the Crown. This piece was the Forest of Hainault. Unfortunately, it fell into the hands of the Office of Works and Forests.
In 1851 and earlier House of Commons neglected for its Members constituents and for posterity the value of open spaces where Londoners might breathe and the House then endorsed a proposal to destroy the woodland and to convert Hainault Forest into arable land.

I only hope that this House of Commons will not make a similar mistake.
Edward North Buxton of Knighton has been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich and others. He transferred his rights and interests to the L.C.C. Writing in his book, "Epping Forest" about Hainault Forest, he paid tribute and I wish to add my tribute to the G.L.C.'s predecessor for what it did in the past for Hainault Forest. Edward North Buxton wrote:
Happily a measure of restitution has recently been brought about with the assistance of the London County Council who are now the owners in trust for the public, not only of the above-named wood and of the adjoining wood in Chigwell parish which has for many years been enclosed…
—Hainault Forest—
but also of the Crown land, known as Fox-burrows Farm, which has now been laid with grass and, in part, re-afforested. Together these form an open space of 800 acres, the whole of which was opened to the public in 1905.
The L.C.C. had a fine record and I hope that record may not be spoiled by its successor, the G.L.C.
This is something for everybody, not something for a selfish lot of constituents of mine. They are not selfish. They want this place to be kept inviolate for Londoners who have come regularly to this beauty spot 250 ft. above the Thames for a day in the country and for respite from the noise and din of the city.
Reference has been made to the bodies which are petitioning against these provisions. I shall not mention them all. They were mentioned by the hon. Member for Dagenham. He and I are Vice-Presidents, however, of the Friends of Hainault Forest. At the new year they had collected 1,200 signatures to a petition of their own.
There are some other bodies whom the hon. Gentleman did not mention. One of them is the Girl Guides Association Camping Committee (London Area). Our point of view is not in any way hostile to campers. We are not against them. We merely question the use of this particular site in this particular way. The Chigwell and Buckhurst Hill Girl Guides Association and the Waltham Forest Playing Fields Association, apart from the Ramblers' Association Southern Area and Ilford and District C.H.A. Rambling Club, should be added to the bodies


mentioned by the hon. Member for Dagenham.
What searches has the G.L.C. made for other sites which would serve the laudable purposes to which the hon. Member for Ealing, North referred? We already have four camping sites in this small area.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Two.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: We have Grange Farm, run by the Chigwell Urban District Council. We have the International Guides Camp. We have the London Mission Playing Fields at Lambourne End. We have a camping site opposite Fairburn House. And there is Debden Green, three and a half miles north from Hainault Forest. So it cannot be said that my constituency and this corner of my constituency has not provided sites for the sort of purpose which hon. Members who disagree with us have in mind.
Access to this site is dangerous. The Lambourne Road is very narrow. Traffic, particularly in summer, is heavy. I know this because I tried to get a school crossing patrol at Chigwell Road Primary School. It is a murderous piece of road in the summer. The nearest stations are at Grange Hill and Hainault.
What alternative sites did the Greater London Council consider? The hon. Member for Dagenham suggested Fairlop Airfield. There are other airfields in this part of the world. There is an airfield at North Weald, now largely disused. Then there is the Lea Valley Scheme, in which the Greater London Council is interested. It is hoped that Lea Valley will become a regional park for sport and recreation. This might well be the sort of site which hon. Members have in mind.
We are told that the objections of Essex County Council have been removed. I am not sure how this fits in with the Essex County Council's development plan.
Finally, I want to refer to the Statute governing Hainault Forest. It is subject to the provisions of the Hainault (Lam-bourne Fox Burrows and Grange Hill) Act, 1903, as applied by the Local Law (Greater London Council and Inner London Boroughs) Order, 1965. The preamble to the 1903 Act gives as its object

securing the preservation and maintenance of the said lands as an open space.
For that purpose the previous estates and interests were
assigned and conveyed
to the London County Council to
preserve and manage them for that purpose"—
for that purpose and no other purpose.
Edward North Buxton transferred his commoner rights and interests because, as he said, he was
desirous of assisting in the preservation of the said lands for the purpose of open spaces".
I hope that the promoters of the Bill will think again and not be guilty, for the best of motives, of breaking faith with both the living and the dead.

9.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I am in no way trying to wind up the debate—it is not my Motion; this is a question for the House—but I think that it would be convenient if I were to touch on some of the points raised and give certain advice to the House about how I think that it might look at the matters at issue.
It seems to me that the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) goes much too far for the detailed and Committee points which he raised. There are none which would justify throwing the Bill out altogether and preventing it being examined by a Select Committee. It seems to me that the Bill is, in general, a useful Measure which would provide some powers and tidy up certain points for the Greater London Council without making a very substantial difference. Many of the provisions do no more than restore powers which the London County Council had when it existed.
Clause 11 only is opposed by a petition, and the other points have not been touched on. If the Bill goes to a Select Committee, we are not committed to a decision. We do not accept the principle of the Clause, but we ask the Select Committee to collect some of the evidence on it. The Committee will have available to it the views of any Minister who wishes to submit a report on the Bill, including, of course, my right hon. Friend.
The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South asked about the power


to raise money by bond under Clause 5. This is a power which existed under the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act, 1966. The arrangements under that Act for settling differences were not found satisfactory, and this is a proposal to limit the power in proportion to the rates. There is not, therefore, a difference in principle.
The power to raise money abroad, also, is not a new and devastating excursion into international finance. It is a power which the London County Council had. Exercise of power is subject to the approval of the Treasury. Although my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider carefully any criticisms which are raised about the power, it is not one which would justify throwing the Bill out.
Clause 11, if I may say so, has been the subject of a very good debate, with the arguments on both sides deployed with vigour and clarity. I should have thought that this was just the kind of issue which should be looked at in Committee. Where there are two conflicting interests—both of which have substantial justification—where local knowledge and local detail matter enormously, I can think of no better body to examine the question than a Select Committee of the House, with the evidence coming before it and with the public, petitioners and various interested parties able to present their evidence.
My own view, therefore, is that, if we are really to consider whether or not the nightingale can be discerned in Chigwell, there is no better body for the purpose than a Select Committee. However, that is only my view and it is up to every hon. Member to form his own judgment.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) raised a question on Clause 12 I hesitate to interpret someone else's Bill, particularly in the presence of so distinguished a lawyer as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silk in), but I think that Clause 12 is restrictive. It does not extend any power to enclose open spaces. It merely limits the power which already exists. If there is not already power to acquire land formerly in Kent I do not think that that gives them it. But I shall look at the point and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South also asked why hairdressers should be registered. I may be able to help the House on that by drawing its attention to Section 77 of the Public Health Act, 1961, which empowers the local authority to make byelaws concerning hairdressers. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that it should have power to register the hairdressers in order to enforce the byelaws.
All those points, apart from Clause 11, are matters of detail which could be tidied up in Committee. It would be better, in my view, also to look at Clause 11 in Committee, and I advise the House not to vote for deferring the Second Reading for six months. My view would also be not to accept the Instruction, but that is a matter for the House.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I wish to revert to the first Amendment, which asks that the Second Reading of the Bill be postponed for six months. I do so with a certain amount of reluctance, because I would not wish to postpone the provision of another much-needed underground car park in the central London area. We have had assurances that it can be provided in Bloomsbury Square without injuring the Square's amenities, and we much welcome that.
Apart from that consideration, it appears that the Bill is ill-thought-out in detail. It was apparent from the inability of the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) to reply to questions from my hon. Friends concerning the working out of some Clauses that those who prepared his long brief had been unable to advise him of the detailed operation of some of them. He was unable to deal with the extent of the provision in Clause 21 relating to hairdressers, and to say what effect Clause 25 had on the powers of the Inns of Court and the City of London. He said quite frankly that he did not know; those who briefed him had not worked it out, and had not told him.
On the question of retrospective legislation we were merely told that there was no event against which it was contemplated, but that it was rather nice to have. That is not a cogent reason for legislation. For those reasons one would strongly urge the withdrawal of the Bill for at least six


months, so that those bringing it forward can think about its provisions in more detail and bring something far more satisfactory to the House.
A provision that causes considerable disquiet is contained in Clause 8. The hon. and learned Gentleman told us that it did not contain any novel provision. He said that the nationalised industries possessed the powers that he wished to give the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs to invest superannuation funds in the acquisition, development and management of land. But it is a very novel proposiiton for local authorities.
What would be the effect of the power if it were granted to the Greater London Council and the London boroughs? It would mean that these authorities could acquire any property through this fund anywhere in the United Kingdom. Secondly, it would mean that they could use the money not merely for the provision of out-borough or out-Greater London housing but for engaging in commercial activities through the building of factories and the provision of town centres in the areas of other authorities. That is a very novel extension of the powers of London local authorities.
If this power is to be given to these authorities in the Bill, would not other local authorities be entitled to ask for similar powers? Could we deny them in the circumstances? The effect would be—and I agree that I cannot expect to carry hon. Members opposite with me on this aspect—a further undesirable extension of public ownership. Inevitably, we are giving this power of acquiring properties for a variety of purposes to local authorities in addition to powers they already have and in addition to powers given to the Land Commission and the nationalised industries. Into the maw of public ownership more and more land will fall. I cannot expect hon. Members opposite to agree with me on that aspect, however.
But I can expect to invite their sympathy on another aspect. We are introducing into an already highly competitive market another purchaser with substantial funds. We all know that one of the reasons for the substantial rise in land prices over the past decade has been the intense competition between developers seeking an ever-decreasing supply of land. There has been increased competition between

developers of factory sites, town centres and the rest.
Now we are to inject another competitor with additional sources to compete for this diminishing supply. This can only serve to contribute to the increasing cost of land. The simple law of supply and demand will bring this about and it must be considered totally undesirable that we should seek to endorse any measure that is bound to have this kind of effect. I put this thought to hon. Members opposite because it is clearly something that should be borne in mind when considering whether or not effect should be given to a Bill which has clearly come before us ill thought out and ill defined and has been presented in the same way.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Jack Dunnett: Contrary to the opinions of most hon. Members opposite and, I regret to say, of some of my hon. Friends, I commend this Measure. It is a useful Bill which gives certain necessary powers to the G.L.C. and at the same time, to preserve economy, tidies up a number of outstanding points.
Most of the comments raised on both sides of the House have been adequately dealt with, mainly by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and I need not go over the ground again, especially since many of these points are, in my humble submission, really Committee points. However, perhaps I can attempt to make my own comments on some of them.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), in an intervention which I am sure he meant seriously, wondered whether we would still have the services of our hairdresser. I gather that, this being Crown property, it does not come within the ambit of the Bill so that we are safe. in assuming that we shall still have him. I also gather that we are inmates of this building and therefore are out of the ambit of the relevant Clause. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) asked whether there had been adequate consultation with all the other local authorities about Clause 25.

Mr. Doughty: I said that the people referred to under the Act were the City of London and the two Temples.

Mr. Dunnett: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I must have misheard. I understand that there has been consultation with the other local authorities in the Greater London area, and if, inadvertently, the authorities mentioned have been omitted, then they will be consulted before the Committee stage.

Mr. Doughty: I do not think that the hon. Member is aware that the authorities mentioned are the only authorities referred to in the Section.

Mr. Dunnett: In that event, if there has not been adequate consultation, there will be before Committee stage, on the assumption that this Bill receives a Second Reading, as I earnestly hope it will. The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) raised a number of points, one concerning borrowing from abroad. It is true that since the war it has regrettably been this country's policy to overborrow from abroad, and this is no change of course.
Unfortunately owing to an outflow of capital from our country it is necessary to compensate in many ways by borrowing from sources abroad which are willing to lend. This may or may not be a good thing, but the fact remains that this Bill merely gives a power to do so, subject only to Treasury permission. If at any particular time it is not expedient to borrow abroad, for economic or other reasons, I am sure that the Treasury would not give that permission.

Mr. Doughty: The authorities referred to are the Inner London boroughs, the City and the Temples. I particularly asked about the City and the Temples.

Mr. Dunnett: I am obliged. I understand that they will be adequately consulted before the Committee stage. The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South, referred to the wider investment powers in Clause 8. He will probably appreciate that the Greater London Council has an enormous superannuation fund, £60 million or more, and even with the resources of the market, it is still always open to it to try to seek new sources of investment for the benefit of that fund.
To take the point of the hon. Member for Hornsey, who says, "Who knows where this will lead?" As he says. this is an innovation, but most legislation at some point or another is innovatory.

Unless one tries it one does not know. I would have thought that a body such as the Greater London Council would have used its powers wisely, and if it does not use the powers given by this Bill I am sure that there will be representations made.
Clauses 14 and 15 deal with retrospection. It was argued that it had been said that we have no particular case in mind. Surely the object of legislation is to cover all possible contingencies. If there are specific cases, then they can be dealt with; if not it is wise to make such a provision, instead of having to bring in subsequent legislation.

Mr. Roots: This Clause deals with specific cases of acquisition of land. It must be known whether land has been acquired.

Mr. Dunnett: Land has clearly been acquired, but the specific point covered by the Clauses has not arisen. Obviously land has been acquired, otherwise the Clauses would not be there. I understand that the question raised was were there any specific cases where this was needed? There are no specific cases which have been drawn to the attention of the G.L.C., but cases could arise, because these powers existed before and are potentially capable of coming into effect.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I repeat the question I put in an earlier connection to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots). If there are no known cases to which the Clauses could apply, why are they made retrospective? If there are no known cases, why is it thought necessary to put forward retrospective legislation, which this House abhors, on the offchance that something unknown might be caught?

Mr. Dunnett: I am told that there are no known cases at the moment, but, as this is legislation of some years standing, there could be cases in future. However, if the Clause is objectionable, presumably suitable Amendments will be proposed in Committee.
The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South referred to Clauses 18 and 19. He commented adversely on the need to extend the time for dealing with certain works. I am sure that the original provisions estimated how long they would take. For these works beyond the control of the Council the time has been


exceeded and clearly it needs an extension. If it did not get an extension, presumably it would not complete the works. It is no good complaining about the G.L.C. seeking powers to finish something. Clearly, if we do not give it the power it cannot finish the work.
It may be undesirable to anticipate a date and to ask for an extension, but these works have taken longer than it was thought they would.

Mr. Roots: The period which has elapsed is two years. But the Council is seeking a further four years in addition to the two years. It seems a curious extension.

Mr. Dunnett: It must have made an initial miscalculation which it is trying to make good. It freely admits that it has made a mistake.
The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South was mistaken about Clause 23. It applies only to occupied premises. A careful reading of the Clause will make that clear.
The hon. Member for Hornsey referred to the investment powers, which I have tried to cover. There is a constant inflow of monies and the G.L.C. must invest them for the benefit of its prospective pensioners.
The main opposition to the Measure concerns Hainault Forest. Anyone interested in the countryside and open space, particularly near large cities, would clearly want to do his utmost to preserve the amenities for people not only in the adjoining area but in all the conurbations at hand. Anyone living in the vicinity of an area which has been completely protected possibly has a subconscious objection to other people coming in. But the utmost precautions are to be taken. The G.L.C. has taken the greatest pains to consult the local planning authority, the Essex County Council, and has entered into undertakings with that authority. In consideration of the Council withdrawing its objections the G.L.C. has given certain undertakings which would meet all the planning conditions on which the Essex County Council would otherwise insist. These conditions are laid down in considerable detail, just as if there were a planning application and permission was given with conditions.
The camping place is to be occupied by tents and caravans on a short stay basis only. This is only for the summer season. The duration of stay is not to be more than 28 days. The number of caravans is to be limited. No caravan kept on the site is to be hired out. The layout is to be organised and not crowded. Toilets, ablutions and provision stores are to be provided. Weighing the benefits to the people of the conurbation at large and to visitors to this country, particularly to the London area, against the minor inconvenience to local residents, I should have thought that the matter was adequately taken care of. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend is entitled to dissent. If this were to be an unregulated site on which anyone would be free to do as he pleased, I should be against it as strongly as the next person. In view of the undertakings given and the conditions imposed, this is a very reasonable proposal.
Unfortunately, I was not present during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), but I gathered that he was particularly concerned that a large part of available woodlands near London was to be used for this purpose. What is involved?—10 acres out of 280, 3½ per cent. It is a loss, but it must be weighed against the greater gain for people who like to camp in an area where at present there are no camping facilities.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) asked whether this site could be used for gipsies in winter. This is not the intention. It is a purely short-term temporary camping site for the summer, and is not intended to be used for gipsies.
Many of the points which have been made are clearly valid ones, otherwise they would not have been made, but most of them can be thrashed out in Committee. This is a Measure designed to improve the administration of London government, with this extra amenity for visitors and the people of London. It is my opinion that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, leaving points of detail to be dealt with in Committee.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: The Bill covers a variety of totally different subjects, and, if I seem to pass from subject to subject in the course of my


few remarks, it is because I am endeavouring to comment on some of the matters raised in the Bill.
Clause 8, which has been referred to before, is an extraordinary one. The Greater London Council has vast superannuation funds, but frequently they will be wanted and will have to be drawn upon at very short notice. Those funds are to be used for what is described as the purchase of land. The first question which I would ask is, what land? Is it proposed to buy short-term leases, freehold land, or what? There is no definition or restriction at all.
In the outlying parts of Greater London which I half represent, because I am half a Greater London Member and half a country Member, the G.L.C. is trying to buy up land subject to the Green Belt regulations. The Greater London Council is a planning authority, and on application to the Minister, it can get the Green Belt varied. I do not say that it will do that tomorrow, next week or even next year, but it raises the greatest suspicions that, because there is a shortage of land in the centre of London, the G.L.C. may look at what it has bought in the outlying parts. I can promise that if it tries to do anything like that, there will be serious opposition from local people, including myself.
However, if the Council uses superannuation funds to buy such land, it will be difficult to realise it again quickly, and the Council might have difficulty in meeting its liabilities by way of superannuation payments which it has to make. I do not like a Clause which says that it may use money subscribed for one purpose for the purposes of land investment. Land Investment is essentially long-term, because realisation may take a considerable time, but the money is intended to meet a liability which it may be called upon to fulfil at short notice.
If I had time, I would pass some scathing remarks about the investment Clauses. I see mention of "fixed interest Government securities". The name "Dalton" may have unpleasant memories for some. Anyone who has used superannuation funds to buy "Daltons" in the past will know that it was an unwise investment. Anyone

who proposes a similar Clause today would be wise to take the advice which I am now giving.
The borrowing of money on bearer bonds is referred to in earlier Clauses, and the borrowing of foreign money is referred to in Clause 7, but it would be unwise for the Greater London Council to go round Europe trying to borrow Swiss francs and dollars.
I do not like powers to override restrictive covenants, such as one finds in Clause 14. Restrictive covenants are put upon land for the protection of those who live near that land. That a body should take power to override such covenants without the necessity of a public inquiry or a ministerial order is simply treading on the rights of those living nearby who paid large sums for houses and properties in the knowledge that they were covered by restrictive covenants. The Greater London Council will say, "We are sweeping all those aside. We do not mind if it reduces the value of your property. It will go by the board, because we have power under the Greater London Council (General Powers) (No. 2) Act "—as it will then be—" to make these restrictive covenants."
Clause 16 deals with Bloomsbury Square. It is right that there should be a car park there. London is short of car parks. But Londoners will want to know what steps are being taken for the protection of the amenities—the trees and flowers, and so on—which are so attractive to those who pass the Square every day. We have not had sufficient assurances on that very important point.

Sir Ronald Russell: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that nowadays trees can be preserved and transplanted even if they are fully grown? Therefore, there is no need for any desecration of trees in Bloomsbury Square or anywhere else.

Mr. Doughty: There is no need for the desecration of trees in Bloomsbury Square, but I defy anybody to remove and replace the enormous plane tree that has been growing there for 100 years. Perhaps the existing trees will be taken away and others put in their place. That is what we want to know.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus)


said that even a layman could understand the language of the Bill. I have the greatest respect for everything that my hon. and gallant Friend says, but Clause 25 is nothing of the sort. It has been slipped in, couched in ultra-legal language, in order to try to hide its effect. I have referred to the two Acts mentioned in it. Under the Bill the Council will have powers, probably rightly, to serve upon the owners of defective properties notices to repair, and also power to carry out the works itself if the notices are not complied with.
Many London boroughs, particularly the City of London and the two Temples—and I am a Master of the Inner Temple and a member of the Estates Committee—are capable of carrying out their own repairs, in the sense of looking after their own properties. This is particularly true of the City of London. It ensures that owners and tenants carry out their obligations. Now, apparently, the Greater London Council is to be allowed to interfere with the duties at present carried out by the City of London. Part I of Schedule 11 to the Act of 1963 is referred to in Clause 25, and one has to dig away before one can discover what the effect is. Clause 25 provides that
in paragraph 36 of Part I of Schedule 11 to the Act of 1963 for the words 'Sections 24 to 31' there shall be substituted the words 'Sections 24, 25, 27 to 31.'
Is that plain language?
I would not mind betting that the City of London has never heard of this change, and will be very annoyed when it does. I know that the Temples have not. This legal jargon hides the fact that sweeping powers, which have never been possessed by the Greater London Council before, are being taken in respect of certain parts of London.
The letter from the promoters relating to Clause 13 says:
The Outer London boroughs particularly desire for the benefit of Inner London open space powers and a ministerial Order for that purpose is in draft and is intended to run concurrently with the present Bill.
All the Outer London boroughs are interested and concerned about what happens to their parks and open spaces. We have not heard a word about what these draft Ministerial Regulations are, and before the Bill goes further they

should be published. We should be told what benefit there will be—if there is to be any benefit—or what restrictions are to be placed upon Outer London boroughs, if restrictions are going to be placed upon them.
I have covered a variety of subjects, because there is a variety in the Bill. Whether it is given a Second Reading depends on my hon. Friends in all parts of the House. Many matters have been raised and I hope that the Committee will consider them carefully, if and when it does consider these questions.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: I am concerned with Part III, Clause 11, which has been discussed by a number of speakers. I welcomed the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and his saying that this matter can be dealt with in Committee. I hope that, when this is considered in Committee, many of the fears of those of us who represent constituencies in this part of Essex will be removed. We should be clear on one point. There is no suggestion by the opponents of this site being used as a caravan site that Hainault Forest should be denied to people from without that area.
Far from it. We welcome outside people to see the beauties of Essex. There has been an interesting historical survey of the forest and of the traffic and transport difficulties which would arise if the site were developed as a caravan site. Hon. Members not conversant with this part of the world should know that a caravan site here would create many new problems and add to some of the existing ones.
The forest abuts an area which has in the past been hardly done by, particularly by the old London County Council. I am glad that amends have been made since then. I refer particularly to the development of housing estates, and particularly the Becontree Estate, which was started in the 1920s with no planning or idea of providing for the people who were put out there. I have a vivid recollection of the miseries those people suffered after being pitch-forked out of places like the East End of London into a foreign place.
I appeal to the Greater London Council for justice. These people, whom they


put out into Essex, are now suffering from many of the disabilities of the build-up and they look upon this little bit of countryside and natural forest as a compensation for what they suffer in that wilderness of bricks and mortar. I hope that these people's needs and interests will be carefully watched in Committee as they are housed close together in tower blocks and in houses which have few amenities like gardens. In that respect also I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance that this matter will be carefully considered.

9.55 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: At this late hour I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. Several hon. Members have referred to the importance of the trees in Bloomsbury Square, Hainault Forest and elsewhere. Despite what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said, I received some time ago—and I have no doubt that other hon. Members also received this document—a pamphlet from the Civic Trust, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) is the Chairman, showing how quite large trees can be moved.
With the machinery that is available, large and beautiful trees—I am not saying that trees 100 years of age would always qualify for this treatment—can be transplanted. I suggest that the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett), who is a member of the G.L.C., should investigate what can be done to save some of the large trees in our London squares when an area must be cleared for car parking purposes or when trees must be removed from an area such as Hainault Forest.
Hon. Members who have seen the pamphlet to which I am referring will agree that, using the proper machinery, it is not optimistic to say that trees can be transplanted and even removed and transplated again. We should do all we can to preserve as many of these age-old trees as possible and, where practicable, replace them from where they were uprooted when the necessary building work has been completed.
Perhaps the Minister will write to me—if he does not propose to intervene again in the debate—to answer a number of questions about the car park. How many parking places will be provided, what charge will be made for parking and when will the car park be completed? I agree that it is a greatly needed car park, but I hope that the amenities of the Square will be preserved and that the trees will not be killed.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Even at this late hour I am glad to have an opportunity to make some observations about the Bill. When this Measure's predecessor came before Parliament last year I pointed out, as a result of consultations I had had with officers of the Redbridge Borough Council, that it was desirable that the Greater London Council should not imitate its predecessor and confront Parliament with a general powers Bill every year.
Very few—indeed, I suggest none—of the other local authorities in the country find it necessary to take up Parliamentary time every year by the promoting of a Private Bill. Local authorities occasionally bring forward a Private Bill—perhaps once every five or 10 years—but for the rest of the time they use the normal powers that exist for the benefit of all local authorities and do not trouble Parliament in this way.
I was somewhat shaken a few weeks ago, following the debate in which this and other points were raised, to find, when discussing the whole matter with councillors of the G.L.C., that not one word of the debate that had taken place in Parliament had been brought to the attention of the members of the G.L.C. They seem to regard debates here as something of absolutely no concern to them. The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett), who is a member of the G.L.C., obviously takes a close interest in what goes on in Parliament, and I have no doubt that the senior officers—

Mr. S. C. Silkin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

Question, That "now" stand part of the Question, put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion for an Instruction relating to the Greater London Council (General Powers) (No. 2) Bill set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon and pro-

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 27.

Division No. 279.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Armstrong, Ernest
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Haseldine, Norman
Neal, Harold


Barnett, Joel
Hazel!, Bert
Norwood, Christopher


Bence, Cyril
Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oram, Albert E.


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Bishop, E. S.
Horner, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Blackburn, F.
Howie, W.
Pentland, Norman


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Booth, Albert
Hynd, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Boyden, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Buchan, Norman
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lawson, George
Roebuck, Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, John (Reading)
Ryan, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dell, Edmund
ever, Harold (Cheetham)
Short, Rt. Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Eadie, Alex
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ennals, David
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lubbock, Eric
Small, William


Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Steele,Thomas(Dunbartonshire,W.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacColl, James
Swain, Thomas


Ford, Ben
MacDermot, Niall
Swingler, Stephen


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Macdonald, A. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Tinn, James


Garrett, W. E.
Mackie, John
Urwin, T. W.


Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Whitaker, Ben


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, Archie
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Robert
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce



Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. William Molloy and




Mr. Jack Dunnett.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Roots, William


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Biffen, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Higgins, Terence L.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Carlisle, Mark
Iremonger, T. L.
Teeting, Sir William


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Younger, Hn. George


Doughty, Charles
MacArthur, Ian



Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and




Mr. Patrick Jenkin.

ceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

Mr. Speaker: Does either hon. Member wish to move the Instruction?

Mr. Parker: Mr. Parkerindicated dissent.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Ten o'clock.